interface design in interactive science courseware for the...
TRANSCRIPT
Interface Design in Interactive Science Courseware
for the Malaysian Smart School Project
NORFADILAH KAMARUDDIN
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Art and Design
Creative Industries Faculty
QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
MARCH 2012
ii
Keywords
Interface design, interactive courseware, user interaction, learning experience,
development process
iii
Abstract
With the goal of improving the academic performance of primary and
secondary students in Malaysia by 2020, the Malaysian Ministry of Education has
made a significant investment in developing a Smart School Project. The aim of
this project is to introduce interactive courseware into primary and secondary
schools across Malaysia. As has been the case around the world, interactive
courseware is regarded as a tool to motivate students to learn meaningfully and
enhance learning experiences. Through an initial pilot phase, the Malaysian
government has commissioned the development of interactive courseware by a
number of developers and has rolled this courseware out to selected schools over
the past 12 years. However, Ministry reports and several independent researchers
have concluded that its uptake has been limited, and that much of the courseware
has not been used effectively in schools. This has been attributed to weaknesses in
the interface design of the courseware, which, it has been argued, fails to
accommodate the needs of students and teachers.
Taking the Smart School Project’s science courseware as a sample, this
research project has investigated the extent, nature, and reasons for the problems
that have arisen. In particular, it has focused on examining the quality and
effectivity of the interface design in facilitating interaction and supporting
learning experiences. The analysis has been conducted empirically, by first
comparing the interface design principles, characteristics and components of the
existing courseware against best practice, as described in the international
literature, as well as against the government guidelines provided to the developers.
An ethnographic study was then undertaken to observe how the courseware is
used and received in the classroom, and to investigate the stakeholders‟ (school
principal, teachers and students‟) perceptions of its usability and effectivity.
Finally, to understand how issues may have arisen, a review of the development
process has been undertaken and it has been compared to development methods
recommended in the literature, as well as the guidelines provided to the
developers.
The outcomes of the project include an empirical evaluation of the quality
of the interface design of the Smart School Project’s science courseware; the
identification of other issues that have affected its uptake; an evaluation of the
development process and, out of this, an extended set of principles to guide the
design and development of future Smart School Project courseware to ensure that
it accommodates the various stakeholders‟ needs.
iv
Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................ xi
Table of Content ........................................................................................................... iv List of Tables .............................................................................................................. viii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... ix
1: INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH PROJECT ......................................1 1.1 Background to the research problem ......................................................................3 1.2 Research problem ..................................................................................................6 1.3 Research aims and objectives ................................................................................7 1.4 The scope of study ................................................................................................7 1.5 Research questions and sub-questions....................................................................9 1.6 Overview of thesis............................................................................................... 11 2: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .................................................................. 14
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 14
2.2 E-learning and interactive courseware ................................................................. 14
2.3 Interactive courseware: the Malaysian experience ................................................ 20 2.4 Interface design ................................................................................................... 23
2.5 Interfaces form part of interaction design ............................................................. 24
2.6 The relationship of interface design to information and interaction design............ 26 2.7 Interface design in the development process ....................................................... 28
2.8 The context of this research project ..................................................................... 30
3: APPROACHES TO THE RESEARCH : METHODOLOGY AND
METHODS ........................................................................................................ 33
3.1 Qualitative ethnographic approaches ................................................................... 33 3.2 Research design .................................................................................................. 35
3.2.1 Stage 1: Research Investigation:Reviewing established literature ............... 39
3.2.2 Stage 2: Data Gathering Process ................................................................ 39
3.2.3 Stage 3: Transformation of information ..................................................... 40 3.3 Research setting, population and sampling........................................................... 42
3.3.1 Primary research setting, population and sampling ..................................... 43
3.3.2 Secondary research setting, population and sampling ................................. 44 3.4 Ethical issues and others considerations ............................................................... 44
3.4.1 Informed consent, confidentiality and anonymity ....................................... 44
3.5 Methods of data collection................................................................................... 45 3.5.1 Contextual analysis ................................................................................... 46
3.5.2 Content analysis ........................................................................................ 47
3.5.3 Face-to-face interviews ............................................................................. 47
3.5.4 Non- participant classroom observations .................................................... 49 3.5.5 Focus group discussions ............................................................................ 52
3.5.6 Follow up in-depth interviews ................................................................... 53
3.6 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 54 3.7 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 57
v
4: A COMPARISON OF MALAYSIAN SMART SCHOOL PROJECT
COURSEWARE WITH INTERNATIONAL INTERFACE DESIGN
PRINCIPLES AND GOVERMENT GUIDELINES ........................................ 58
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 58 4.2 Contextual document review and analysis............................................................ 58
4.2.1 Interface design principles in the international literature............................. 59
4.2.2 An explaination of the key interface design principles extracted from the international literature ......................................................................................... 66
4.2.3 The Malaysian government guidelines ....................................................... 71
4.3 Content analysis: Interactive science courseware for the Malaysian Smart School Project ........................................................................................... 80
4.3.1 Overview of the interactive science courseware ......................................... 82
4.3.2 Principles,characteristics and components used in the sample of
interactive science courseware ............................................................................. 88 4.4 A comparatives analysis of the interactive courseware with the principles
recommended in the literature and the goverment guidelines ............................. 100
4.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 105
5: EVALUATING THE COURSEWARE IN USE: FIELDWORK .................. 107
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 107 5.2 The participants ................................................................................................. 107
5.3 Understanding pattern of use: Interviews with school principals and science
teachers ............................................................................................................. 109
5.3.1 The uptake of interactive courseware in school ......................................... 110 5.3.2 Factors influencing the level of use ........................................................... 112
5.3.3 Discussion ................................................................................................ 120
5.4 Observations of the courseware in classroom ..................................................... 122 5.4.1 Summary of the observations .................................................................... 124
5.4.2 Discussion ................................................................................................ 129
5.5 Focus group discussions with students and teachers ........................................... 130
5.5.1 Students‟ perceptions of strengths and weaknesses of the interactive courseware ........................................................................................................ 131
5.5.2 The perceived value of the multimedia components ................................. 135
5.6 Triangulation of the findings and discussion ...................................................... 141 5.6.1 The existence of principles and characteristics ......................................... 143
5.6.2 Recommendation for extending the characteristics in the existing
guidelines .......................................................................................................... 150 5.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 152
6: UNDERSTANDING THE DESIGN OF THE COURSEWARE
INTERFACES AS PART OF THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ........................................................................................................ 155
6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 155
6.2 Models for software development in the literature .............................................. 155
6.2.1 Interface design within the development process ...................................... 164 6.2.2 The role of the user in the development process ....................................... 164
6.3 The software development process in Malaysia ................................................. 166
6.3.1 The software production flow outlined by the Ministry ............................ 166 6.3.2 Processes followed by courseware developers.......................................... 168
6.3.3 The development process for interactive courseware in Malaysia ............. 169
6.3.4 Perceptions of learning concepts among courseware developers ............... 175
6.3.5 Issues and challenges faced by the courseware developers ....................... 177 6.4 Teachers‟ involvement in the development process ............................................ 181 6.5 Discussions and key findings ............................................................................. 184
vi
6.5.1 Identifiable issue with the current interface design production
and software development process and the skill of developers ........................... 185 6.5.2 Lack of involvement of end-users as key stakeholder ............................... 187 6.5.3 The current relationships between main stakeholders ............................... 188 6.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 190
7: PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR THE MALAYSIAN SOFTWARE
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND EXTENSION OF THE CURRENT
GUIDELINES ................................................................................................. 193
7.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 193 7.2 Proposed framework for Malaysian software development process .................... 193
7.3 Extended guidelines for the design and production ............................................ 201
7.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 203
8: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK ..... 205
8.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 205
8.2 Summary of research findings ........................................................................... 205 8.3 Research significance ........................................................................................ 208
8.3.1. Practical Implications .............................................................................. 209
8.3.2. Theoretical Implications .......................................................................... 209 8.4 Recommendation for future research ................................................................. 210
8.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 212
List of References ..................................................................................................... 215 Appendices ................................................................................................................ 231
vii
List of Tables Table 3.1: Research design ......................................................................................... 36
Table 4.1: Summary of most frequently occurring recommended principles of interface design in the key literature (by keyword) ..................................... 65
Table 4.2: The characteristics of common interface principles as extracted from the
literature .................................................................................................... 70 Table 4.3: Design components covered in the Malaysian government guidelines for
courseware development ........................................................................... 72
Table 4.4: The characteristics of interface design components identified
in the Malaysian government guidelines .................................................... 74 Table 4.5: Contextual analysis: The principles, guidelines and characteristics
outlined in the Malaysian government guidelines mapped against the
principles in the international literature ...................................................... 76 Table 4.6: Contents of the interactive Science courseware for year 3
(9 years old student) ................................................................................ 82
Table 4.7: The principles and frequency level of characteristics used in the interactive science courseware ................................................................ 101
Table 4.8: The collated principles and their frequency in the interactive science
courseware .............................................................................................. 102
Table 5.1: Number of participants involved in each physical research setting .......... 109 Table 5.2: The frequency of interactive science courseware use in the schools .......... 111
Table 5.3: The factors influencing the use of courseware in schools, as identified
by the principals ...................................................................................... 113 Table 5.4: Computers and computer labs at different Smart Schools ......................... 116
Table 5.5: Profile of experience among teachers against the level of
courseware use by them ........................................................................... 119 Table 5.6: level of student‟s engagement through body language while using the
courseware .............................................................................................. 126
Table 5.7: Student engagement with various media component types ....................... 127
Table 5.8: Summary of the evaluation of principles and characteristics through classroom observations, focus group discussions and in-depth
interviews ................................................................................................ 144
Table 6.1: Summary of interviews with courseware developers ................................ 168 Table 6.2: Summary of steps practised by Malaysian developers .............................. 170
viii
List of figures
Figure 2.1: Relationship of design approaches for creating effective
learning experiences .................................................................................. 27
Figure 2.2: The three pillars of successful user-interface development (Source: Shneiderman, 1998) ..................................................................... 29
Figure 3.1: Overall research plan ................................................................................. 38
Figure 3.2: Stage 3-Transformation of information ...................................................... 41 Figure 4.1: Part of the Malaysian government guidelines ............................................. 72
Figure 4.2: Interactive science courseware for the Malaysian
Smart School Project ................................................................................. 80 Figure 4.3: Screenshot of the opening section of year 3 science courseware ................. 83
Figure 4.4a: Screenshot for the introduction section presenting
the courseware title and lesson topic .......................................................... 83
Figure 4.4b: Screenshots of the introduction showing the topics that can be selected and the change state when a lesson has been chosen ......................................... 84
Figure 4.5a: Screenshot of the lesson topic or tutorial page and
navigation bar ............................................................................................ 85 Figure 4.5b: Screenshot of scene within a lesson ........................................................... 85
Figure 4.6: The introduction to the test page ................................................................ 86
Figure 4.6a: Questions on the test pages requiring a drag and drop response .................. 86 Figure 4.6b: Answering question on the test pages by filling in the working
answer ....................................................................................................... 87
Figure 4.6c: Answering question on the test pages by using the mix and
match procedure ........................................................................................ 87 Figure 4.7: The same typeface is used within the different lesson topics ...................... 89
Figure 4.8: The same style of opening montage in the opening page for different
lesson topics .............................................................................................. 89 Figure 4.9: Similar lesson titles ................................................................................... 90
Figure 4.10: Similar styles of screen layout with different colour themes for different
lesson topic ............................................................................................... 90
Figure 4.11: The same characteristic used repeatedly in different lesson topics to represent the teacher .................................................................................. 91
Figure 4.12: Sample of navigation bar ........................................................................... 91
Figure 4.13: The location of the standard navigation bar in the different lesson topics similar ...................................................................................................... 92
Figure 4.14: “Sang Kancil” is a recognisable character across the interactive Science
courseware ................................................................................................ 93 Figure 4.15: The colours used for the text provide contrast and make it easy to read ...... 94
Figure 4.16: The images are presented and accompanied by the explanatory words ...... 95
Figure 4.17: Mouse over effect on the navigation bar .................................................... 95
Figure 4.18: The choice to listen to the audio or not....................................................... 95 Figure 4.19: Flexibility in navigation including play, repeat, go back to previous pages
and go to the next page .............................................................................. 96
Figure 4.20: The same confirmation dialog used for same action in different lessons ........................................................................................ 97
Figure 4.21: The text, human characters and graphic images are appropriate to the user
age group .................................................................................................. 98 Figure 4.22: The features of the graphic images used for human characters with concern
for avoiding ethnicity or religion biases ..................................................... 98
Figure 4.23: Example of immediate feedback when clicking on an active button ........... 99
Figure 5.1: A student using the interactive science courseware at a new Smart School ........................................................................................... 123
Figure 5.2: Students in the class at a state Smart School ............................................. 124
ix
Figure 5.3: A teacher using the interactive courseware and students watching the big
screen at a remote Smart School .............................................................. 124
Figure 6.1: The waterfall model: progress flows from the top to the
bottom like a waterfall (Source: Beynon-Davies, 1993) ........................... 157 Figure 6.2: The iterative model: flows of development are
based on a cyclic process (Source: Boehm, 1985) .................................... 159
Figure 6.3: A spiral model: progress flows of development must be repeated more than once (Source: Boehm, 1988) ..................................... 160
Figure 6.4: The ADDIE model: Core elements of the phases of quality improvement
(Source: Smith & Ragan, 1998). .............................................................. 164 Figure 6.5: Production Flow for Malaysian interactive courseware as outlined
by the Malaysian Ministry of Education. .................................................. 167
Figure 6.6: The common flow of the development process currently implemented by
courseware developers in Malaysia .......................................................... 171 Figure 6.7: A comparison of steps in the development process in the waterfall model
and the development current practices in Malaysia................................... 172
Figure 7.1: The shift in the development process from technology oriented approaches to user involvement .........................................................195
Figure 7.2: A new proposed framework for the software development
process in Malaysia ................................................................................. 198
x
Acknowledgments
While writing this thesis, I realized that doing a PhD is not an individual exercise but that it can only be done with the input and support of others. I would like to warmly
thank the following people for their contributions to my research project and my work in
completing this thesis. Without the support that they have generously given, this thesis
would not have been possible.
Firstly, my sincere thanks are addressed to my principal supervisor, Dr. Jillian
Hamilton for her advice, encouragement, assistance, and support from the beginning to the end of the journey. Her understanding and experience have really supported my
understanding in this research project. I would also like to express my appreciation to my
associate supervisor, Dr. Ji Yong Park who gave me valuable assistance with the direction of the research and his careful reading and assessment of the draft thesis. Under this
excellent supervision team, the preparation of this thesis has been both educative and
enjoyable for me.
Secondly, I would like to record my everlasting gratitude to other research
colleagues for discussions, administration staff in the Creative Industries Faculty and
International Office of the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) for providing additional help to me. Furthermore, special thanks go to my sponsors: the Malaysian
Government and University of Technology MARA (UiTM), for granting me the
scholarship to pursue my graduate studies at QUT.
Thirdly, the research could not have been completed without the assistance of the
participants from the courseware developers (the project managers and the designers) in
this study to all the school principals, teachers, students and administration staff at primary Smart Schools in Malaysia, which served as research sites for this project and
provided the time to undertake the fieldwork. And last, but not least, I thank my lovely
dad, mum and my husband who have provided me with emotional support from a distance, which has carried me through some difficult times in the various phases of the
research.
It is a pleasure for me to experience how all this people have been willing to give of their time, energy and support, and thereby help me to have a positive experience.
Dila Kamaruddin,
BRISBANE
xi
I would like to dedicate my research thesis to my two little boys:
AMIR and AIRELL
And hope that this would inspire them to greater heights in their lives.
“The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step”
xii
Statement of Original Authorship
I declare that this thesis entitled “Interface Design in Interactive Science Courseware for the
Malaysian Smart School Project” is the result of my own research except as cited in the
references.
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements
for an award at this or any other higher education institution.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously
published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature : .............................................................
Name : NORFADILAH KAMARUDDIN
Date : 13 MARCH, 2012
1 | Interface Design
1. Introduction to the research project During the past two decades, Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
and multimedia-based learning have begun to play an important role in
classrooms. The benefits of this technology have been noted by scholars who
acknowledge that computer software and the Internet provide a great potential to
make learning processes more accessible (Segers, 2002), more engaging
(Beuschel, Gaiser & Draheim, 2003) and more interesting (Cawkell, 1996; Flew,
2002; Gauss & Urbas, 2003; Harry & Khan, 2000). In line with this, interactive
courseware has been adopted as an effective learning tool to motivate students to
become active participants in the teaching and learning process (Burgess, 2003)
and to improve students‟ learning performance (Raisinghani, 2003). To take
advantage of the potential that ICTs offer, many educators, including those in
developing countries, have chosen to use interactive courseware in various levels
of education (primary, secondary and tertiary).
Inspired by this understanding that computer technology and multimedia-based
learning can improve the performance of teachers and offer pedagogical benefits
by improving students‟ learning abilities, attitudes and achievements, the
Malaysian Government has also incorporated ICTs into the Malaysian education
system. 1998 saw the launch of the Smart School Project (locally known as the
Sekolah Bestari), with 89 schools involved in a pilot program across the country
(Malaysian Ministry of Education, 2004; 2006b). The explicit goal of this
program is to provide interactive teaching and learning materials to enhance
teaching performance and improve students‟ learning outcomes (Malaysian
Ministry of Education, 2006). The eventual goal is to transform a further 10,000
primary and secondary normal schools in Malaysia into Smart School status by
the year 2020 (Malaysia Ministry of Education, 2004).
Under the Smart School Project, there are three different types of Smart School.
Schools are categorised as a new Smart School, a state Smart School, or a remote
Smart School. Categories are depends on the school‟s background, facilities and
infrastructure. A new Smart School is provided with a high level of technology
and equipment, a state Smart School is provided with a medium level of
2 | Interface Design
technology and equipment, and a remote Smart School is provided with a minimal
level technology and limited equipment. That is, students at a new Smart School
receive a mini laptop per person, while remote Smart Schools are supplied with a
handful of shared computers in a computer lab. The government also supplies a
laptop to all teachers involved in the pilot project, to provide an incentive for them
to implement computer technology in their teaching and learning and thereby
ensure that project delivers benefits to Malaysian education (Malaysian Ministry
of Education, 2008; Multimedia Development Corporation, 2007; Rohana, 2006).
Various types of interactive learning materials have been introduced into primary
and secondary education classes in Malaysia as part of the Smart School Project.
This includes stand-alone interactive courseware such as CD-ROMs; browser-
based teaching and learning materials, such as online tutorials provided through a
web portal called BestariEd1; and a joint program in collaboration with overseas
schools called My School Net2 (Azizah & Rohani 2005; Malaysian Ministry of
Education, 2006). In line with this, many private companies in Malaysia have
invested in collaborating with the government (through the Malaysian Ministry of
Education) to produce stand-alone interactive courseware. Out of this
collaboration, 1494 titles have been developed so far. Involving key learning
domains, namely Bahasa Melayu (Malay language), Mathematics, Science and
English, they have been distributed across the Smart School Project in Malaysia
(Malaysian Ministry of Education, 2006, 2008; Multimedia Development
Corporation, 2007).
To date, the interactive courseware has had the greatest uptake in Smart Schools
in Malaysia (Malaysian Ministry of Education, 2008) because of its capacity to
present educational content (Rohana, 2006) and because it is believed to be a
suitable tool for presenting rich media environments to allow students and
teachers to work collaboratively (Malaysian Ministry of Education, 2004; 2006;
2008). For this reason, the courseware is the focus of this study.
1 BestariEd is a web portal that was developed by the Malaysian Education Ministry in co-
operation with private companies. This portal contains learning aids and materials and can only be
accessed by selected schools. 2 MySchoolNet is a website set up by the Malaysian Education Ministry to provide links to
educational information worldwide. The key feature in this website is the provision of interactive
communication between Malaysian school children and students from other countries.
3 | Interface Design
1.1 Background to the research problem
After several years of producing interactive courseware, and implementing it
through the Smart School Project, evaluations of the level of uptake and
utilisation were conducted between 2003 and 2008. Unfortunately, this research
indicates that the courseware is under-utilised. Research by the Education
Technology Division of the Malaysian Ministry of Education in 2006 found that
60 percent of the 86 Smart Schools surveyed do not fully utilise the interactive
courseware that has been provided to them (Malaysian Ministry of Education,
2006). This finding is also supported by research conducted by Zaitun (2006) and
Shiong et al. (2008), who have similarly found that much of the courseware is
rarely used in teaching, and that the frequency of courseware usage overall is
limited.
Several studies that have primarily focused on the effectiveness of the interactive
courseware have also noted similar patterns of uptake and usage (Malaysian
Ministry of Education, 2008; Multimedia Development Corporation, 2007;
Shiong et al., 2008). These studies have evaluated teacher preferences, and the
needs of students in the Smart School Project in Malaysia. The results indicate
that a range of factors have impacted negatively on courseware uptake and use.
This not only includes a lack of available technology (Jowati, 2005) but also
includes the attitudes of students and teachers, based on the perceived quality of
the interactive courseware (Malaysian Ministry of Education, 2006; 2008;
Multimedia Development Corporation, 2007). Indeed, a study by Zaitun (2006),
which focused on the perceptions of teachers, concluded that some of the lessons
in the courseware do not adequately meet the needs of end-users, especially
teachers.
These studies have largely conclude that the limited uptake of the courseware can
be attributed to deficiencies in the interface design in accommodating the needs of
students and teachers and that problems with the interface design have resulted in
poor interactivity (Habsah et al., 2006; Kamariah, 2006; Zaitun, 2006; Malaysian
Ministry of Education, 2006; Multimedia Development Corporation, 2007;
Shiong et al., 2008).
4 | Interface Design
Specific interface design issues have been highlighted by some researchers. For
example, Baharuddin et al. (2006) have indicated that the interfaces in current
courseware do not encourage students to use the courseware, or to stay long in
front of it. Habsah et al. (2006) and Shiong et al. (2008), both have argued that
this is because the current interfaces have limited interactive features and fail to
attract the attention of students. Others have argued that interface design issues
cause poor user interaction and fail to encourage students‟ participation and
engagement with the courseware (Lee, 2000; Malaysian Ministry of Education,
2006; Multimedia Development Corporation, 2007). The most recent review of
the interactive courseware in 2009 concluded that some of the content is too long
or too short and that some content includes no multimedia components (Goi & Ng,
2009).
These issues are particularly notable in the courseware for science subjects that
are delivered in the Malaysian Smart School Project. In particular, a report by the
Multimedia Development Corporation in 2007 stated that it does not provide
enough instructional information for the students to understand and use it
(Multimedia Development Corporation, 2007). And a comprehensive study on the
interactive science courseware conducted by Kamariah (2006) concluded that
some of the simulations in the courseware do not reflect real lab scenarios, such
as safety drills. Two reports by the Ministry of Education suggest that such issues
affect students‟ learning outcomes and academic achievement, particularly in
primary school (Malaysian Ministry of Education, 2006; 2008).
The broad international literature on interactive courseware explains that an
effective learning experience is achieved when students are engaged and involved
in the learning activities (Biggs, 2003; Sambrook, 2003) and that interactive
courseware should therefore motivate students to learn by encouraging them to
actively participate (Mayer, 2001). That is, it should enhance the learning
experience by facilitating users‟ interaction and experience.
While it has been argued that the level of engagement and courseware use
depends on teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes towards the interactive courseware
and its implementation (Malaysian Ministry of Education, 2004; 2006; Puteh &
5 | Interface Design
Hussin, 2007), it can be concluded from the above that the end-users of the
existing interactive courseware (both teachers and students) are not completely
satisfied with the interface design of the current interactive courseware available
in Malaysia and this contributes to the formation of such attitudes. It can therefore
be said that much of the interactive courseware that has so far been developed for
the Smart School Project in Malaysia has been developed without properly
considering key factors relating to the various interactions between students and
the courseware, the students and teachers, and between students.
While most international researchers recognise the value of interactive courseware
in educational settings, there has been ongoing debate about aspects of its
effectiveness in improving the quality of learning experiences in primary
education. For example, various studies have been conducted to compare its value
relative to traditional media in educational settings (Beuschel, Gaiser, & Draheim,
2003); the advantages and disadvantages of using interactive courseware
(Beuschel et al., 2003; Burgess, 2003; Cawkell, 1996; Flew, 2002; Harry & Khan,
2000; Keegan, 2000; Loeding, 2002; Radford, 1997; Raisinghani, 2003); its
overall effectiveness (Loeding, 2002); its effects (Eveland, 2003); the relationship
between the use of interactive courseware and academic performance (Kubey,
Lavin & Barrows, 2001); and the needs of students in using interactive
courseware (Beuschel et al., 2003).
It has been established that various factors influence its effectivity, which range
from the availability of the necessary technology (Cantoni, Cellario & Porta,
2004; Council for Higher Education Accreditation, 2002; Kubey, Lavin &
Barrows, 2001), accessibility (Baharuddin et al., 2006); interaction design (Clark,
2001; Fresen, 2005; Wagner & Kozma, 2005); and interface design (Meyer, 2002).
In particular however, the uptake and effectiveness of the interactive courseware
depends on aspects of interface design and the extent to which it accommodates
students‟ needs (Thurmond, Wambach, Connors & Frey, 2002), encourages
students‟ interaction (Yang & Cornelius, 2004) and contributes to an effective
interactive learning experience (Kubey, Lavin & Barrows, 2001). And, it is
broadly accepted that poor interface design and interactivity affect user interaction
and can diminish the learning experiences of users.
6 | Interface Design
The international literature has therefore established that the design of interfaces
for interactive courseware needs a systematic process and must be executed by a
skilled development team (Buzhardt, Abbott, Greenwood, & Tapia, 2005; Galitz,
2002; Nielsen, 2000) and that it must above all involve consideration of the end-
user needs (Hinostroza & Mellar, 2001; Norman, 2002) to ensure the uptake and
effectiveness of the interactive courseware. In particular, when developing
interactive courseware, developers must consider the followings factors: the
interface design must support interactivity and individualised learning among
users; the layout and display of the interface must be suitable and appropriate for
the end-users; and the instructions must strategically facilitate learning.
However, a study by Thang et al. (2009) in Malaysia, points to the fact that while
the Malaysian Ministry of Education provides guidelines that can be related to
those established in the international literature, some of the courseware developers
have not properly followed the design guidelines and instructional design
strategies that were provided to them.
1.2 Research problem
The results of the above-mentioned studies and the latest survey results by the
Malaysian Ministry of Education suggest that the interactive courseware that has
been developed for the Smart School Project in Malaysia often fails as a tool for
teaching and learning. This failure is largely attributed to poor interface design.
However, no study has yet been published that contains an empirical analysis that
clearly explains the claims made about the deficiencies of the interface design,
and details the reasons for them arising.
Because the problems with the courseware have been largely attributed to
deficiencies in the interface design, this research project has focused on that
aspect of the courseware. It has sought to investigate the validity of claims
surrounding the deficiencies in the interface design of the interactive courseware
that has been developed for the Malaysian Smart School Project and to understand
the reasons for them. It has involved a content analysis to compare the interactive
courseware against a range of interface design principles established in the
7 | Interface Design
international literature, as well as against the Malaysian government development
guidelines. It has evaluated the reception of the interactive courseware through
empirical analysis of the level of uptake, engagement, effectiveness, and barriers
of use for the end-users by observing and evaluating the use of the courseware in
the context of the classroom and by interviewing school principals, teachers and
students. The perspectives of the courseware developers have also been
considered through a series of interviews.
Following these steps, this study has sought to clarify the extent and specific
nature of issues surrounding the courseware, as well as reasons for any identified
failures of the interface design in facilitating the process of interaction between
end-users (teachers and students), and accommodating their needs in the teaching
and learning process.
1.3 Research aims and objectives
While the main aim of this research project has been to critically investigate the
extent, nature and reasons for problems in the interface design within the existing
interactive courseware in the Malaysian Smart School Project, the objective of the
research has been to establish a revised set of effective interface design principles
and practical guidelines for future courseware development. Both the resulting
principles and practical guidelines will be made available to the Malaysian
Ministry of Education and courseware developers for consideration in future
development of interactive courseware in Malaysia. It is anticipated that, by
addressing the needs of all stakeholders (the Ministry, courseware developers and
the end-users), these outcomes will serve to improve the interface design of future
courseware and so enhance students‟ interaction and overall learning experiences
in Malaysian classrooms.
1.4 The scope of study
This research project focuses on the interface design of interactive courseware in
the Malaysian Smart School Project. Although other multimedia software
products are used in teaching and learning at schools in Malaysia currently, this
study has focused specifically on the interactive courseware. Interactive
8 | Interface Design
courseware is defined as academic software available via stand-alone CD-ROM,
which contains structured lessons and exercises and combines text, sound, video,
and images to achieve particular learning outcomes. Other types of e-learning
materials available via the Internet are not included in the scope of this study.
Because recent reports by the Malaysian Ministry of Education have established
that the highest level of user dissatisfaction in the Malaysian Smart School Project
is with the interactive Science courseware (Malaysian Ministry of Education,
2008), this study has focused specifically on this interactive courseware as a
sample.
The study provides an analysis of the courseware itself, as well as how the
courseware is actually used in classrooms, and how it was developed. To do this,
several schools have been involved in the study as a representative sample of the
Malaysian Smart School Project. Other types of school populations that exist in
Malaysia were not included because they are not involved in the pilot Smart
School Project and differ in several regards, such as school facilities,
infrastructure and access to the courseware. A number of courseware developers
have also been involved in the project as a limited, representative sample.
While the interactive courseware that is the focus of this study is used in
educational settings and its interface design affects learning experiences, this
study has focused on examining the interface design against established interface
design theories rather than educational theories. It approaches interface design as
a medium of communication in delivering content, encouraging user interaction
and enhancing user learning experiences. That is, the perspective of the study
focuses on the effectiveness of the interface design principles and characteristics
in terms of accommodating, facilitating and enhancing students and teachers
needs and experiences. Thus, the evaluation has not focused another educational
issue such as differences in learning styles or individual differences in learning
activities, which are beyond the scope of this study.
9 | Interface Design
1.5 Research questions and sub-questions
The main research question of this study is:
To what extent does the interface design in the current interactive Science
courseware that has been developed for the Malaysian Smart School Project
accommodate user needs and facilitate user interaction and so support the
overall learning experience; and how it might be improved?
This leads to four specific sub-questions. They are:
Research Question 1: What interface design principles established in the
international literature are echoed in the Malaysian government guidelines, and
are they evident in the current interactive Science courseware?
Investigative questions:
1) What principles and characteristics for effective interface design are
recommended in the international literature?
2) Are the principles, characteristics and components suggested in the
international literature evident in the Malaysian government guidelines?
And are the government guidelines comprehensive or overly broad?
3) Are the principles, characteristics and components outlined in the Malaysian
government guidelines evident in the sample of interactive Science
courseware?
Research Question 2: How do the users (school principals, teachers and students)
of interactive Science courseware for the Malaysian Smart School Project interact
with the courseware and how do they perceive it?
Investigative questions:
1) How frequently is the courseware used in schools, and are there any barriers
such as infrastructure, staff skills and so on?
2) How do the school principals and teachers perceive the courseware? Do
school principals encourage the use of the courseware in their schools? How
do they and the teachers compare its value against traditional teaching and
learning methods?
10 | Interface Design
3) How easily do the students and teachers interact with the interactive Science
courseware and are any obstacles to engagement encountered through the
interface design?
4) Do the interface design components in the existing interactive Science
courseware effectively facilitate students and teachers interaction? If so,
how does this happen? If not, what obstacles are encountered?
Research Question 3: How has the interface design of the existing interactive
Science courseware been developed and has this contributed to the quality of the
interface design?
Investigative questions:
1. What methods and processes are recommended in the international
literature for interface design production and software development?
2. What are the processes recommended in the Malaysian government
guidelines and how do they compare to the international literature?
3. Do the courseware developers follow the Government guidelines and/or
the international literature?
4. What relationships exist between the main stakeholders - the ministry, the
developers and the schools?
This leads to the question relating to the objective of the study, namely:
Research Question 4:
Drawing on the review of the international literature, the Malaysian government
guidelines, and a content analysis of the current interactive Science courseware, as
well as the observed and reported experiences of end-users (students and teachers)
within this research study; what principles, characteristics and development
guidelines can be recommended for future interactive Science courseware in
Malaysian education?
Investigative questions:
1. Are there any aspects of the design process in the current framework that
can be changed to benefit the various stakeholders including the end users?
11 | Interface Design
In response to these research questions, this PhD project consists of an
exploratory research study into the strengths and weaknesses of the interface
design of interactive courseware developed for the Malaysian Smart School
Project. In response to claims made by previous researchers in Malaysia (for
example, Baharuddin et al., 2006; Shiong et al., 2008) and a report by the
Ministry of Education (2008), which state that interface design of the current
interactive courseware has failed to adequately accommodate the needs of
students and teachers, this investigation has examined the quality of the design of
the existing interactive courseware, with particular emphasis on the interface
design and the experience of the courseware by end users. It has then gone on to
investigate why issues may have arisen by investigating the development process
against recommended guidelines and international approaches to software
development.
1.6 Overview of the thesis
This thesis is divided into eight chapters, namely: (1) Introduction to the research
project, (2) Theoretical Background, (3) Approaches to the research:
Methodology and methods, (4) A comparison of the Malaysian Smart School
Project courseware with international interface design principles and government
guidelines, (5) Evaluating the courseware in use: Outcomes of the fieldwork, (6)
Understanding the design of the interface as part of the software development
process, (7) Proposed framework for the Malaysian software development
processes and extension of the current guidelines and finally, (8) Conclusion and
recommendations for future work.
In brief, Chapter 1, Introduction has provided an overview of the context and
background of the research project, as well as the project‟s rationale. It has
outlined the research problem and questions and identifies the purpose and
objectives of the research project. It has also defined the scope of the study.
The context of the project is discussed in detail in Chapter 2. It provides an
overview of educational learning systems and the use of interactive courseware in
12 | Interface Design
the learning process through reference to international studies and the Malaysian
context. Then, the complexities associated with the interface design of interactive
courseware are discussed, including how interface design impacts upon user
interaction, influences the learning process, and affects learning experiences. The
context of the current research project is outlined at the end of this chapter.
Chapter 3 explains the methodology used, and the rationale for the use of methods
drawn from ethnography is provided. Both the strengths and weaknesses of each
method are described in detail. This chapter then elaborates on how the research
project was planned and conducted. It describes the research design by explaining
the research sampling and the research settings that were involved in this research
project, the types of qualitative methods used for data collection and the analysis
procedure. Finally, some ethical issues are considered.
Chapter 4 presents the data collected through the multi-method approach. It is
divided into four main sections. After presenting the rationale for the data
collection, the second section provides an explanation and comparative analysis of
the data collected through analysis of interface design principles gathered from the
literature and the guidelines set by the Malaysian government. The third section
presents the data gathered through a content analysis of the interactive Science
courseware. The fourth section describes a comparative analysis of the courseware
against Ministry guidelines and the international literature. A summary of the data
and the relationships identified between the data sets is provided at the end of this
chapter. This provides the basis for a comparative analysis of the interface design
principles, characteristics and components identified in the international literature,
the Ministry guidelines and the existing courseware. The outcomes of
comparative analysis are then discussed in terms of the strengths and deficiencies
of the interface design within the courseware.
Chapter 5 focuses on the findings of the fieldwork and provides an analysis of the
interface design in use. It presents the data collected through surveys and field
studies, which focus on how the courseware is currently being used in classrooms,
and the perceptions of school principals, students and teachers as end-users. A
rationale for the fieldwork within real contexts is provided, as well as details of
13 | Interface Design
the participants involved. A discussion on the interviews with school principals
and teachers establishes the frequency of courseware use in the classroom and
reasons for the level of uptake. Then, the data gathered through classroom
observations is presented and discussed, followed by data gathered through focus
group discussions with students and interviews with science teachers. This leads
to conclusions on how the interface design affects the level of students‟
interaction and the overall learning experiences.
The investigation into why issues have arisen in the development process in
Malaysia is reported in Chapter 6. A comparative analysis of the software
development process that is recommended in the international literature against
the Ministry guidelines provided to Malaysian developers is presented. This is
followed by a comparison with the actual development processes, based on
information obtained from face-to-face interviews with the courseware developers,
school principals and teachers. This chapter also discusses how the current
development practices affect the quality of interface design and it outlines some
alternative models of software development and design.
Based on these findings, a new framework for the software development process
and supplementary guidelines for interface design production in the Malaysian
context are proposed in Chapter 7. These are based on the needs, concerns and
recommendations of the three main stakeholders; namely the Ministry, developers,
teachers and students. The resources provided are designed to be used by the
Ministry and courseware developers for future courseware development in
Malaysia.
The final section of this thesis (Chapter 8) provides conclusions. It consists of a
summary of findings from the different data sources, then all the findings are
brought together to summarise the overall research findings and the conclusions
drawn from this research study. This chapter also elaborates on the limitations of
the study and its theoretical and practical implications. Finally, this chapter
discusses recommendations for further research by articulating potentially
beneficial lines of enquiry.
14 | Interface Design
2. Theoretical Background
2.1 Introduction
As outlined in the Introduction, this project consists of an exploratory research
study into the strengths and weaknesses of the interface design of interactive
courseware in the Malaysian Smart School Project. In response to claims made by
previous researchers in Malaysia (see for example, Baharuddin et al., 2006;
Shiong et al., 2008) and a report by the Ministry of Education (2008), which state
that the interface design of the current interactive courseware has somewhat failed
to accommodate the needs of students and teachers (as end users) and encourage
interaction, this investigation examines the quality of the existing interactive
courseware, with particular emphasis on the interface design and the experience of
the courseware by end users.
There is a growing body of literature in the field of computer-based learning, e-
learning and multimedia-based learning. There is also a large and established
body of literature on interface design and interaction design. There is also a body
of literature (albeit a much smaller one) that focuses on these issues in relation to
the quality of learning experiences in the Malaysian context. This chapter will
ground the current study by providing an overview of the broad literature on
interface design and its importance in interactive courseware. This will provide a
critical perspective on the importance of interface design for ensuring the
effectiveness of users‟ interactions and overall learning experiences in interactive
courseware. Following this broad overview, a review of the literature in the
context of Malaysia will narrow the focus to a local context.
2.2 E-Learning and interactive courseware
E-learning is commonly defined as an approach to teaching and learning that
includes the use of electronic or computer technology to access and interact with
learning materials (Davis, 2001). Some theorists, such as Fry, (2000) are more
specific, defining it as a form of training or education that incorporates
15 | Interface Design
interactivity with various electronic media. Other scholars have defined it more
narrowly, as a process of teaching and learning that is specifically related to the
Internet and World Wide Web (Bates, 2005; Clark & Mayer, 2003; Colvin &
Mayer 2008; Roffe, 2002; Sambrook, 2003, Schank, 2003; Tsai & Machado,
2002). However for the purposes of this study, it is defined by the common use of
the term as the use of various interactive media to achieve learning goals. It
includes various technologies and ranges from providing classroom access to
information via the Internet, to context specific electronic learning materials
delivered via standalone CD-ROMs installed in computers at schools.
The later is the focus of this study. It is generally referred to as interactive
courseware (Clark & Mayer, 2003; Lee & Sullivan, 1996; Mayer, 2001), which
can be described as computer software that incorporates educational material
intended as kits for teachers or as tutorials for students. It is comprised of
combinations of multimedia components such as animation, sound and graphic
images that provide learning materials and can accommodate students with
different learning styles (Shamsiah, 2004).
Advances in both online and stand-alone software technologies have enabled
courseware developers around the world to deliver innovative educational
programs to students, and the uptake of E-learning has expanded substantially
over the past decade. By 2002, it was estimated that 55% of education programs
worldwide included some form of computer technology (Elearnframe, 2002).
Since then, many more students and teachers have adopted the use of computer
technology in educational settings (Akar, Öztürk, Tunçer & Wiethoff, 2004;
Githens, 2007; Repetto & Trentin, 2008).
These new approaches to education have altered the way it is being delivered. The
benefits of interactive learning have been long established. As far back as the
early 1990‟s Funkhouser (1993) and Henderson (1992) argued that the use of
interactive courseware in teaching and learning can help students understand
principles and concepts more effectively and Khoo and Lou (1995) suggested that
the use of interactive multimedia products in teaching and learning can strengthen
the learning process and improve students‟ performance. Many claims have since
16 | Interface Design
been made about the effectiveness of interactive courseware to help students gain
more knowledge (Alessi & Trollip, 2011; Hoon, Chong & Binti Ngah, 2010), to
motivate students to learn meaningfully by engaging them more in their learning
process (Mayer & Moreno, 2002), to enable students to learn more in a shorter
time (Weiss, 1993), to improve students‟ learning outcomes and performance
(Clark & Mayer, 2003; Gauss &Urbas, 2003; Jonassen et al., 2003; Sambrook,
2003), to enhance students‟ commitment (Balinsky, 2006; Rashty, 2003), and to
help students build new knowledge and skills related to learning goals.
Other studies on the acceptance of interactive courseware in education have found
that it can help to motivate students to participate more in the learning process
(Bradler, 1999; Hunt & Ivergard, 2005; Wan Ng & Gunstone, 2003; Nugent, Soh,
Samal & Lang, 2006). Most importantly, Lee (2000) has argued, students become
more responsible and spend extra time in their learning activities through the use
of interactive courseware. Others have concluded that participation in a
technology-rich environment has a positive impact on students‟ performance in all
subject areas (Khalili & Shashaani, 1994; Perez-Prado & Thirunarayanan, 2002).
In line with this, measurements have been made to evaluate what Schank (2003)
describes as „learning gains‟, which evaluate student performance and the
effectiveness of interactive courseware and E-learning systems more broadly.
Some scholars have focused on specific reasons for such accomplishments. For
example, Koory (2003) has argued that interactivity with learning content helps to
improve users‟ understanding. Wu, Tennyson and Hsia (2010) have argued that
the learning process can become more lively and fun for teachers and students
when computers are used in the process of teaching in classroom. And a study by
Mason and Rennie (2004) has argued that effective interactivity through
interactive courseware in E-learning helps users to gain more a in-depth
understanding of the content. Others have argued that the personalized feedback
and consistent messages provided with computer-based materials assists students
in the learning process and some argue that they allow a student to set his or her
own pace of learning. As such, a student that is a fast learner can forge ahead at a
pace that an average student would not be able to manage. Thus, combining
17 | Interface Design
traditional classroom training with E-learning tools can produce a powerful
combination for long-term success (Sambrook, 2003).
On the other hand, some scholars have differed and have argued that there is not
necessarily a significant difference in performance between students who are
supported by computer technology and those who learn through conventional
classroom methods (Abraham, 2002; Dykman & Davis, 2008; Piccoli, Ahmad, &
Ives, 2001). White and Weight (2000) have claimed that learning by using
interactive courseware cannot replace the traditional teaching and students‟
learning style in the classroom. Clearly, interactive courseware itself can never
completely replace teachers because teachers are necessary to assist students in
the learning process (Schwier & Misanchuk, 1993). It should be noted however,
that the basic objective of interactive courseware is not to replace the teacher, but
it does change the teacher's role. Stolterman (2008) indicates that the effectiveness
of interactive courseware in the classroom is not guaranteed if teachers use it
simply as a support tool. Teachers, he argues, need a solid understanding of the
nature of interactive courseware itself, and to understand and embrace its potential.
He further highlights that when the teacher uses the interactive courseware to
teach their students in the classroom, it is important for them to have some
knowledge about how interactive courseware, particularly the interface design of
interactive courseware helps students to learn better (Beuschel, Gaiser & Draheim,
2003).
Because E-learning necessitates a new style of teaching and learning, a large
number of studies have investigated the problems associated with making it part
of the teaching process. This includes the need for teachers to assume different
teaching methods to those used in traditional teaching (Bonk, Wisher, & Lee,
2004). Thus, while most studies on the level of teachers‟ acceptance of
courseware found that it has a positive impact on their decision to use computers
in the classroom (Smerdon et al., 2000; Yuen & Ma, 2002), this may lead to
resistance among teaching staff (Pegler, 2005). Teachers‟ and students' attitudes
toward interactive courseware, as well as the effective integration of learning
materials into the curriculum, are therefore identifiable sub-factors that influence
its effectiveness (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002).
18 | Interface Design
We must also endeavour to understand other potential obstacles such as access to
technology (both software and hardware) due to the cost and logistics (Weller,
2004) as well as the availability of support resources (Fabry & Higgs, 1997). In
addition, Willging and Johnson (2004) have found that the ability of students to
use computers is a primary factor in successful implementation and Homan and
Macpherson (2005) and Litto (2002) have found that teachers‟ and students‟
attitudes towards computers can present a potential barrier.
Bates (2005) suggests that interactive courseware must be fully interactive to
encourage and motivate students to be involved actively if it is to be effective.
The presentation of content alone is clearly not enough to engage students in
learning. Studies on the implementation of interactive courseware have confirmed
that highly interactive courseware can make the teaching and learning process
easier and help students understand and remember better (Bates, 2005;
Raisinghani, 2003). In addition, interfaces must allow students to tailor the
learning experience to their own individual needs.
One of the biggest challenges for teachers in using interactive courseware is to
meet the different needs of students (Lin, 2002), especially their different learning
styles. Yet different courseware packages offer varying degrees of
individualisation. Because of such factors, not all interactive courseware is
equally effective and productive, and choosing suitable interactive courseware for
a particular E-learning community is an important and somewhat complex
decision (Ghaoui, 2003).
Evaluation research on interactive courseware proceeds from two main
perspectives. Some draws on instructional design theories to evaluate the
pedagogical value of courseware systems while other research focuses on broader
interface design and interaction design theories. For example, while Reeves
(1992) focuses on pedagogical dimensions and uses learning theory to establish
criteria for evaluating different forms of Computer Based Training, Nielsen uses
heuristic evaluations to assess usability. That is, interactive courseware is
primarily intended to achieve educational goals and is designed for various
educational uses (such as reference material, instructional tools, or supporting
19 | Interface Design
exercises or explorations in the classroom environment for students to do on their
own or in groups) and must contain specific learning objectives (Alessi, & Trollip,
2001). Therefore, interactive courseware must support, and be informed by,
educational theory and the courseware developer must understand how interactive
courseware meets these needs. However, it is equally important to gauge the
effectiveness of interactive courseware through the level of user interaction,
which is then related to the level of users‟ understanding of the content (Appana,
2008; Oakley, 2004; Rovai & Jordan, 2004). As Mayes & Fowler (1999) and
Hannay & Newvine (2006) argue, to achieve better results through E-learning, we
should not only focus on learning outcomes, we must also look at the learning
process and interaction with the teaching materials (in this case interactive
courseware).
Andrewartha and Wilmot (2001) and Ladyshewsky (2004) have established that
the level of participation and satisfaction with interactive learning materials by
both students and teachers make the most significant impact on academic
outcomes. The literature establishes that the quality of interactive courseware can
be measured by a usability test, which looks at the level of engagement by the
end-users and their satisfaction with the interactive courseware.
Evidently, user satisfaction with the courseware depends largely on the quality of
the interface design (Cavalier & Klein, 1998; Balinsky, 2006; Nastasi, Clements
& Battista, 1990, Schoenfeld-Tacher, McConnell & Graham, 2001). It has been
noted that it is not easy to design interfaces that effectively meet the needs of
users (Homan & Macpherson, 2005). But an understanding of interface design is
imperative to the development process in order to create effective interactive
courseware. Along with an in-depth understanding of the theory of interface
design, it is also necessary to establish user needs and requirements to ensure ease
of access to, and understanding of, content (Galitz, 1997; Nielsen, 2000).
And finally, the use of interactive courseware in the classroom necessarily
involves interaction between teachers, students and the courseware itself. Since
the early 1990s, numerous researchers across the world have focused on the
„engagement‟ of users with interactive courseware and how it affects these
20 | Interface Design
relationships. Notably, Rhee, Moon and Choe (2006) have reported that poor
interface design performance can reduce the interactivity between the courseware
and users, and further, it can diminish interactive learning experiences among
users (Stone, Jarrett, Woodroffe & Shailey, 2005). This indicates that interface
design not only plays an important role in supporting users‟ access to the content
of courseware, it is imperative in providing individual and shared user satisfaction
in the learning process.
For these reasons, the interface design of interactive courseware must be carefully
designed by courseware developers to ensure that it meets all of the intended
users‟ needs, provides user satisfaction and enhances quality learning experiences
(Galitz, 1997; Manovich, 2001; Nielsen, 2000). Besides the materials and
pedagogical approach, the effectiveness of interactive courseware used in
classroom is highly dependent on two main factors: (1) the quality of interactive
courseware, including the effectiveness of interface design performance and (2)
user interaction, including user participation and collaboration in learning
experiences. Both are contingent on a strong software development process.
2.3 Interactive courseware: The Malaysian experience
While various aspects of E-learning have been discussed in the international
literature, most of the research it focuses on has been conducted in first world
countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Continental Europe.
The empirical data and information about E-learning in developing countries such
as Malaysia is limited. Nonetheless it is possible to draw on local reports and a
small body of literature to establish the current context of E-learning in Malaysia.
Because of a strong belief that computer technology will improve learning
outcomes, Malaysia constantly invests in computer technology for education and
has implement an E-learning strategy. In Malaysia, e-learning has been developed
under the umbrella of educational technology programs offered by the
government through the Malaysian Ministry of Education. E-learning programs
actively began with a pilot called the Smart Schools Project in 1998, when
teachers in selected Smart Schools were given the opportunity to use interactive
21 | Interface Design
courseware to teach Malay language, English, Mathematics and Science subjects
in the classroom (Goi & Ng, 2009; Jowati, 2005; Malaysia Ministry of Education,
2004, 2008; Rohana, 2006). In addition, the Malaysian government has provided a
laptop to each teacher to ensure that the supplied interactive courseware can be
utilised successfully (Hajar, 2005; Malaysia Ministry of Education, 2006b, 2008).
These initiatives were designed to provide an incentive to the schools to use
computer technology in their teaching and learning activities (Atan, Azli, Rahman,
& Idrus, 2002).
Since 1998, E-learning has taken shape and gained widespread popularity in
Malaysia. However, only a small number of studies have been conducted into the
effectiveness of E-learning, its implementation and its outcomes in the local
context. This includes work by Azizah et al. (2005); Baharuddin et al. (2006);
Hajar (2005); Jowati (2005); Kamariah (2006); Lee (2007); Puteh (2006); and
Multimedia Development Corporation (2007).
These studies have largely focused on the interactive courseware that is available
for the Smart School Project. Most have concluded that the E-learning system in
Malaysia does not provide significant impact. Some studies relate this to teachers‟
and students‟ attitude and perceptions, and argue that these must be improved for
it to be effective. However most conclude that the interactive courseware itself
presents two major issues. Firstly, not all subjects can be taught effectively using
an interactive multimedia approach (Baharuddin et al., 2006; Jowati, 2005;
Multimedia Development Corporation, 2007; Malaysian Ministry of Education,
2004, 2008; Muda & Mohamed, 2006). In particular, Kamariah (2006) notes that
some subjects – such as Science – need to be presented in the form of the real
thing because learning through simulations in Science can mislead students and
impact negatively on their understanding. A second issue that has been identified
is that the current interactive courseware has not been tailored to the needs and
abilities of students (Azizah & Hanita, 2005; Mokhtar et al., 2005).
Muda and Mohamed (2006) have gone further to claim that much of the
interactive courseware in Malaysia fails in terms of instructional design and
interface design and go on to explain that the courseware does not accommodate
22 | Interface Design
the end-users‟ interests, preferences and needs. They conclude that it is for these
reasons that teachers have returned to the use of printed textbooks for teaching
and learning sessions. Similarly, Jowati (2005) has argued that the courseware has
been used as a forum to showcase the advances of computer technology, rather
than prioritising the facilitation of content writers, graphic designers and
instructional designers who are working towards the needs of students and
teachers to produce a tool to enhance teaching and learning.
The main challenge faced in Malaysia is to ensure that teachers and students can
use interactive courseware effectively and creatively (Goi & Ng, 2009; Thang,
Murugaiah, Hall & Hazita, 2009). While positive conclusions have been reached
in previous research about teachers‟ willingness to embrace interactive
courseware use in classroom, a general misunderstanding that often occurs is that
interactive courseware is simply used to establish topics and present content
(Bismillah Khatoon, 2008; Hoon, Chong, & Binti Ngah, 2010; Thang, Murugaiah,
Krishnasamy, Azizah & Hazita, 2009; Zain et al., 2006). According to Bismillah
Khatoon (2008), teachers commonly project the interactive courseware to a big
screen located in front of the class and students simply watch it with limited
guidance by the teachers. At the other extreme, some teachers have claimed that
teaching with the interactive courseware requires more preparation work. Hence,
the interactive courseware is likely to remain in the box.
Clearly interactive courseware should not be expected to replace teachers‟ roles in
delivering knowledge to students but must be seen as a tool for engaging students
in curriculum and must do so in an engaging way that involves both teachers and
students interacting with the courseware. The literature on the Malaysian
experience makes it clear that, in order to ensure the successful adoption of
interactive courseware in Malaysian classrooms, the most important
considerations are the quality of interface and instructional design, as these design
factors provide the basis for access and engagement. And, as the broad literature
establishes, the development of interactive courseware should be based on
theoretical understandings of the learning process because the main goal should
be to help students gain knowledge. Understanding of the processes through
23 | Interface Design
which this happens effectively is therefore crucial. That is, in Malaysia, as is the
case internationally, the effectiveness of interactive courseware is related to the
quality of its instructional and interface design.
Therefore, in the following sections, the ecology of interface design and how
interface design theory relates to other aspects of interactive courseware such as
interaction design, learning processes and learning experiences are discussed in
detail. This discussion covers the way in which the interface of an interactive
learning product not only affects user interaction but the learning process and
learning experiences, and it explains why a lack of attention to interface design in
the development process can lead to limited uptake of interactive courseware in
the classroom as well as a failure to enhance the learning experiences of students.
2.4 Interface design
Put simply, interface design is defined in the literature as the aspect of software
that allows humans to interact with a machine. As Soren (2005) describes it,
interface design bridges the gap between users and machines, so that data is
arranged in a systematic way to make it easier for users to navigate, access
information efficiently, and understand the product. Interface design may be
regarded as the „front-end‟ of the product, which enables the users to interact,
communicate and have conversations with the machine while code and data from
the „back-end‟ (Galitz, 2002; Shneiderman, 1998). In information communication
technologies (ITCs) interface design refers to the overall screen-presentation of
the application, which allows the user to access and understand the information
required or sought.
Borchers (2001) argues that interface design does not just pertain to aesthetic
values, or the look and feel that is produced by the design elements such as colour,
font size, images and layout (i.e. the positioning of title, menus, keys etc.) but that
it is a communication tool that mediates between users and computer systems.
From the perspective of interaction design, interface design is defined as a
specific approach to component arrangement, in which the designer facilitates
access to content, activities, collaborations and so on. Preece, Rogers and Sharp
24 | Interface Design
(2002) believe that the interface design of an application determines how users
feel about the communication process, and Cooper and Reimann (2003) similarly
suggest that interface design is the primary aspect that determines users‟
satisfaction. Thus, to ensure that users of computer systems are satisfied and
access to the content is maximised, a designer of an interactive system must create
an appropriate and effective interface.
In 1993, Weiss mapped the inter-related components of the interface which, he
argued, consists of four main categories with separate features. These can be
summarised as follows:
a) Presentation interface, which impacts on the way the user feels about
information and is produced through the elements of screen design, such
as graphics, menu, layout, colour and so on.
b) Conversation interface, which controls how the system communicates
with the user of the system and mediates between the user and the system
(as a form of communication).
c) Navigation interface, which controls the way in which the user can move
from one piece of information to search for other information (for example,
in movement from one page to another page).
d) Explanation interface, which controls the way in which the system
supports the user‟s different activities by providing guidance and
explanation (through, for example, text and visual cues such as icons,
bread crumb trails etc.).
That is, interface design should not only be appealing and establish a look and feel
that users will respond to positively, it must also help users to find and remember
information, and support them in the tasks that they need to perform. Interface
design is therefore an important aspect of interaction design.
2.5 Interfaces form part of interaction design
As the context through which users control different activities, interfaces serve as
an explanation for interaction. For example, interface design should mediate tasks
by providing direction for interaction through text, images or icons, they should
25 | Interface Design
link between activities, and they should enable the provision of appropriate
feedback as an encouragement to the user to continue using the software. That is,
an interface produces tangible effects in facilitating and encouraging interaction
between users and systems. As Nielsen (2000) argues, an effective interface
design gives users control over the interactive courseware. Moreover, key authors
in the field have established that graphical presentations through interface design
can provide users with the confidence that they can find what they want without
wasting their time, (Norman, 2002, Nielsen, 2000) and can support end-users in
the tasks they must perform. As explained by Galitz (2002), if the interface is well
designed, users will not only perform well, but their experience will be enriched.
On the other hand, poor interface design can lead to stress (Balinsky, 2006). From
a users‟ point of view then, effective interface design is a major factor that
contributes to the degree of pleasure and agency of interaction. And this has a
flow on impact on the enjoyment and effectivity of learning experiences.
Besides these broad functions and principles, it is also important to note that
interfaces must accommodate the varying contexts and needs of users. Norman
(2002) has argued that, because user experience is the key to the quality of the end
product, the development of interface design should therefore begin with an
understanding of the user and the reasons they are using the product. Therefore,
the process of interface design should first include an investigation of the target
demographic, needs and the level of experience with technology. However,
designing an interface may involve a complex creative process that accommodates
several target end-users with different needs, levels of experience and so on. As
Nielsen (2000) argues, an effective interface design blends user experiences and
needs.
As Spohrer (1996) and Galitz (2002) have pointed out, interface design that is
developed without a clear understanding of the software‟s target users and the
context of use, may not be usable, effective or pleasurable. This is not to say that
all interface design for computer software must be designed to accommodate all
user‟s needs, but that it must be designed for the needs and abilities of the users
for whom it is intended.
26 | Interface Design
Interface design must therefore be understood as a key factor in interacting with a
software system in a meaningful way. Therefore, any evaluation of the
effectiveness and appropriateness of the interface design of an application should
include observing user interactions with it to establish access, usability and
engagement.
2.6 The relationship of interface design to information
and interaction design
The use of technology alone does not automatically translate into effective
learning experiences. There are a number of inter-connected factors that are
important to ensure this. Savery and Duffy (1995) argued early on that learning is
optimised when the process of learning is active and many education specialists
have since gone on to argue that effective learning requires a degree of
participation and involvement in the learning environment (Boud & Prosser,
2001; Preece, Rogers & Sharp 2002). Oliver and Herrington (2003) extend this
argument by suggesting that it is a combination of the nature of the interactive
learning material, the level of learner engagement, and the forms of learning
support offered that is required to provide quality of learning experiences. Biggs
(2003) and Sambrook (2003) concur but frame these three factors differently as:
effective learning material presentation, effective engagement with tasks, and
effective engagement with content.
These three types of effectivity can be facilitated through three design elements:
interaction design, information design, and interface design. Numerous
researchers have established the importance of these three components of
interactive courseware. For example, Ben-Ari (1998) argues that interaction is one
of the key factors in effective learning, and that different kinds of interaction
promote different degrees of learning. Van Duyne, Landay and Hong (2003)
claim that learning experiences are influenced more by interface performance and
instructional design strategies associated with the learning materials than by the
type of technology used to deliver the instruction. And Thurmond, Wambach and
Conners (2002) propose that the mode of content delivery influences user
27 | Interface Design
interaction, while interface design can enhance the active participation of the user.
Yang and Cornelius (2004) also affirm that in order to produce quality learning
experiences, effective user interaction and interface design are essential. In
addition, Paluch (2006) and Shedroff (1994)3 establish that it is the combination
of interaction, information and interface design that is the key to effective user
experience design. This interconnected relationship is shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Relationship of design approaches for creating effective learning
experiences
What can be drawn from this diagram is that it is necessary to consider the three
elements (interaction design, information design and interface design) as inter-
related factors in any research on students' learning experiences and the potential
learning outcomes that can be gained from interactive courseware. And, to
improve students‟ learning experiences and outcomes, these three elements must
to be understood in concert.
However, there is a case for focusing on interface design performance in an
analysis of the effectivity of interactive courseware. This position is strongly
3 Some may argue that navigation design and usability should be included in the key components,
but they are relatively results-driven functions rather than cause-driven, and navigation design is a
subset of interaction design.
Information Design
Effective
engagement
with content
Interface Design
User interaction
Effective learning
experience with
interactive courseware
Effective material presentation
Effective
engagement with
tasks
28 | Interface Design
supported by Raskin (2000) who argues that interface design is the essential factor
in the quality of learning experiences, because an interface must inherently cater
to learners‟ possible and expected interactions. Furthermore, Shedroff (2001)
argues that interface design is the primary factor that affects users‟ understanding
– and whether the user misunderstands or misinterprets the material presented.
While interaction design is an important structural factor that impacts on
engagement, it is interface design that acts as a filter of information (Johnson,
1997), as it determines the information that users can access, what they can do
with the content, how they perceive tasks and how they interpret information. In
addition, interface design contributes to the motivation of the learner to continue
using the application. And, as Balinsky (2006) asserts, a well-designed interface
can excite user interest, demonstrate concepts clearly with interactive examples,
and allow learners to manipulate, play with, and develop ownership of concepts.
From a pedagogical perspective, this is particularly important as it relates to
access, as well as to the interpretation and value of incorporated learning material.
In addition, for the user to become actively involved in the learning process
through interactive courseware, the interface design must not only respond
appropriately and meaningfully to user actions, it must enable the user to control
his/her own pace and mode of learning. That is, interface design is an integral part
of an entire product, and it determines experience and enhances interaction. It
therefore impacts the most on the use of interactive courseware in the learning
process as well as its effectiveness.
2.7 Interface design in the development process
What becomes evident from the discussions in the literature is that developers
must understand users‟ needs. In the case of educational software, this includes
expertise on how students learn and how technology can be meaningfully
integrated into that learning process. To create appropriate courseware for
educational contexts, developers must therefore apply learning theories as they
focus on interface design as a fundamental aspect of the design process.
29 | Interface Design
Because the design of an effective user interface arises from a careful analysis of
the proposed user‟s tasks and environment, it requires an understanding of at least
three things: (1) the users who will interact with it, (2) the capacity of the
computer systems and software, and (3) the interactions between users and the
computer systems (Galitz, 2002). To further the understanding of these three
elements, a variety of methodologies, guidelines and principles have been
established. Early on, Shneiderman (1998) suggested three pillars for successful
user-interface development from the perspective of HCI (human-computer
interaction). They are: (1) guidelines and process (using both theory and a model),
(2) user interface software tools (arising from a prototype), and (3) usability
testing and expert review (conducted with a representative user group). These
pillars are illustrated in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2: The three pillars of successful user-interface development
(Source: Shneiderman, 1998)
With regards to the first pillar, Shneiderman (1998) differentiates between
principles and guidelines. Whereas principles are broad and general, and should
be interpreted before being applied to a specific system, guidelines are specific to
a project and are contextual and quite detailed. A well-designed interface is
therefore based on design principles but guidelines and recommendations also
provide designers with specific requirements for designing the interfaces of a
particular project. While Smith (1986) explains that guidelines should be offered
to designers as a potential resource, to complement a designer‟s experience, rather
than a requirement, guidelines help to ensure an effective interface design and a
Successful User Interface
Guidelines &
Process
User Interface Software Tool
Expert Review &
Usability Testing
Theory & Model Prototype Control Experience
30 | Interface Design
developer who is left unguided may produce poor interfaces that fail to establish a
context-specific relationship between users and a purpose-designed product.
With regards to the second pillar, Shneiderman (1998) explains that prototyping
increases interface design quality. Prototyping is used to generate a trial version of
the interface for users to evaluate, and it forms part of the analysis phase of the
systems development life cycle. A prototype model may vary between a low
fidelity (paper) prototype to an high fidelity interactive prototype of overall
interface design, at different phases of the design process. It includes features,
functions, and look and feel of the potential screen of the computer system. Often
one or more prototypes are made in a process of incremental development as part
of an iterative process, where each prototype builds on feedback on previous
designs. In this way problem or deficiencies in interface design can be identified
and corrected at the initial stages. Therefore, the likelihood of success in the
resulting interactive courseware in terms of appropriateness to the target user, and
optimisation of intended use within an anticipated context is increased. Thus,
when prototypes of interfaces are used in the system development process, there is
an improvement in interface design quality.
In terms of the third pillar, which involves gauging the quality of the interface
design, Shneiderman (1998) suggests that the quality of interface design should be
evaluated through usability testing and expert review. Shields and Kukulska-
Hulme (2006) argue however that interface design performance should be
measured by the level of courseware usage, while Preece, Rogers and Sharp
(2002) argue that it should be measured from both the users‟ and the developers‟
perspective. Whatever the process involved, it is clear that usability testing is
highly recommended in the international literature to ensure that the interface
design is optimal before releasing the product to users.
2.8 The context of this research project
As discussed in the Introduction to this thesis, surveys carried out in Malaysia
(Goi & Ng, 2009; Malaysian Ministry of Education, 2006; 2008) have shown that
the uptake and extent of use of locally developed interactive courseware in the
31 | Interface Design
classrooms is not very encouraging. The reasons reported include a range of
factors, but most commonly relate to the interface design and the attitudes of users.
As this literature review has established, interface design is a crucial aspect of
interactive courseware because it facilitates ease of access to content, active user
engagement, perceived relevant of the courseware to the target group and the
overall perception of the interactive courseware. Perhaps not surprisingly then,
reviews that have been conducted on the interactive courseware developed for the
Malaysian Smart School Project point to failures in the interface design and its
impact on the courseware‟s capacity to meet the needs of teachers and students for
effective learning experiences.
The international literature makes clear that understanding user needs and the
involvement of stakeholders in usability analysis through prototype testing are key
factors in the development process and are crucial for the development of
effective interaction and interface design in educational courseware. From this, we
might conclude that if the interactive courseware was developed with a deep
understanding of the users‟ needs and requirements through their involvement in
aspects of the design process, along with the application of pedagogical
knowledge identified in the literature, and adherence to a clear and comprehensive
set of government guidelines, and rigorous user testing, then the interactive
courseware that has been developed for the Smart School Project would not face
barriers to adoption in classrooms.
Within the Malaysian context, the interface design of the interactive courseware is
clearly an issue that needs to be examined in greater detail. While International
theorists have long explained that the production of effective interface design is
dependent on courseware developers adhering to established design principles,
and the execution of context and project specific guidelines, and while previous
studies conducted in Malaysia have established that interface design is a key
factor contributing to the under-use of the purpose designed courseware, as yet
there is a lack of empirical analysis of the exact nature of the issues arising in the
interface design and how this relates to established principles and the guidelines
that have been provided to the developers by the Malaysian government.
32 | Interface Design
This gap in the literature on the local problem of interface design in educational
courseware has motivated this research project to critically explore the specifics of
the problems with the interface design from the perspective of the end users as
well as the people involved in the design process – the courseware developers.
The project proceeds from the premise that, in order to establish a deeper
understanding of the issues and deficiencies in the interface design of the
interactive courseware in Malaysian Smart School Project, it is important to
establish a comprehensive understanding of both perspectives: the end-users and
the courseware developers. The following chapter, which outlines the design of
the study, explains how this intention to establish a dual perspective has been
incorporated into the project‟s approaches to data collection.
33 | Interface Design
3. Approaches to the research: Methodology
and methods
The Introduction and the Literature Review, which preceed this chapter, have
introduced the reader to the research problem of this thesis and how it relates to
the broader established field. In particular, they have provided an overview of the
international and local Malaysian literature on interactive courseware, as well as a
current understanding of interface design and its importance in interactive
courseware for ensuring the effectiveness of users‟ navigation, access to content,
and engagement through interaction. This chapter will now discuss the research
methodology utilised by the researcher to establish empirical evidence as a
foundation for understanding the issues surrounding the interface design of
interactive courseware in Malaysia.
3.1 Qualitative ethnographic approaches
Because this research project set out to first investigated the validity of claims
surrounding deficiencies in the interface design of interactive courseware for the
Malaysian Smart School Project before establishing reasons for any identified
problems, it was necessary to gain a broad understanding of the level of uptake
and use of the courseware, as well as a detailed insight into the ease of use, levels
of engagement and perceptions of end users. This has required forming an
understanding the context and practices of use of the courseware, before
ascertaining the reasons for any problems encountered through an analysis of the
practices relating to the development process. Specifically, it has proved
necessary to understand the practices and attitudes of the participants involved in
the use of the interactive courseware then the practices and attitudes of those
involved in its production and implementation. The participants in this project
have therefore included a range of stakeholders including the community that
comprises the schools in the Smart School Project (the school principals, teachers
and students), the government (Malaysian Ministry of Education), and the
courseware developers.
34 | Interface Design
To gain the necessary insights, this research project has employed qualitative
approaches that can be related to an ethnographic research methodology.
Ethnography is a research strategy developed by anthropologists and sociologists,
which is used to identify the social and cultural values, beliefs, practices and
meaning of experiences and activities of certain groups of people (Gobo, 2008;
Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). This approach can be related to this research project
because the main research problem involves an empirical study of the views and
real experiences of communities of students and teachers interacting with
Malaysian Smart School Project courseware in their natural settings.
However, this research project is not an extensive ethnographic study. Firstly, it
does not involve an intensive investigation into the holistic cultural and social
practices of a community. Secondly, when used in educational research settings,
ethnographic studies tend to focus on a single research setting and concentrate on
recording detailed aspects of a single phenomenon over a period of time
(Goldman et al., 2007). However, in this research project, the researcher did not
spend extensive periods of time in the field as an anthropologist would, but short
intensive periods of time in the physical location of selected schools involved in
the Smart School Project, which proved sufficient to gather the data necessary for
the focal study. Thus, it can be said that the project has utilised ethnographic
approaches to data collection rather than it being a full-blown ethnographic study.
According to Gobo (2008), conducting any form of ethnographic research is
complex because there are at least three approaches that must be merged:
participant observations, fieldwork and case studies. Chapman and McNeill
(2005) argue that these three approaches are highly recommended for
ethnographic researchers in educational settings and Irwin (2008) also argues that
this can lead to a deeper understanding. Moreover, using these different methods
helps to alleviate the shortfalls of each single research method (Plano Clark et al.,
2008; Creswell, 2003; Lapan, 2004). Thus, this research project has employed a
range of ethnographic techniques: watching what happens, listening to what
participants say, and recording the information given by the participants by taking
field notes. This combination of methods has provided richer insights and ensured
that more meaningful information has been collected.
35 | Interface Design
Besides ethnographic methods, this project has also incorporated other research
methods including contextual analysis, content analysis, comparative analysis and
the triangulation of data and findings. In summary, this research project
commenced by identifying what types of data are relevant to the research problem,
through a formal contextual analysis of the international literature and the
Malaysian-specific literature. Then, a content analysis of the interactive
courseware was conducted. Following that, the researcher entered the field to
examine and document what was occurring in the real situation. This is where
ethnographic techniques were employed to gather empirical data, including face-
to-face interviews with school principals and teachers, non-participant
observations with the teachers and students in context (the classroom), followed
by focus group discussions with them. This was followed by interviews with
Malaysian courseware developers. Finally, the researcher conducted a
comprehensive comparative analysis on the different data gathered to provide
answers to the research questions that have been outlined in the Introduction to
this thesis (and summarised below). The process concluded with report writing to
outline the findings and recommendations. The overall research design is
explained in the following section.
3.2 Research design
As noted by Lang and Heiss (1998), a design for conducting research helps the
researcher to plan the process for finding answers by focusing on the research
questions. This research project has similarly been guided by the main research
questions, sub-questions, aims and objectives, and the research design has
involved the following research methods set out against the objectives, as
summarised in Table 3.1.
36 | Interface Design
Research Questions
(RQ)
Study Objectives Research Methods
RQ1
What interface design
principles, including those
established in the literature,
and those outlined in the
Malaysian government
guidelines are evident in
the interactive science
courseware?
Part 1
Ascertain the
principles,
characteristics and
components that have
been established in
the literature; are
provided in the
government
guidelines; and are
evident in the
courseware.
Formal contextual analysis:
Collecting, reviewing and
analysing the international
literature and the current
Ministry guidelines.
Content analysis: Collecting,
reviewing and analysing the
interactive courseware.
Comparative analysis:
Comparing principles used in the courseware against the
international literature and the
Ministry guidelines.
RQ2
How do the users (school
principals, teachers and
students) of interactive
Science courseware for the
Malaysian Smart School
Project interact with the
courseware and how do
they perceive it?
Part 2
Determine how school
principals and teachers perceive the
courseware.
Evaluate users‟
interaction with the
interface design
components in the
courseware.
Determine the
strengths and
weaknesses of interface design
principles, and
characteristics in the
courseware.
Ethnographic Study
Face-to-face interviews with
the school principals
Non participant classroom
observation of students and
teachers
Focus group discussions with
students accompanied by their
teachers.
In-depth interviews with the
teachers.
RQ3
How has the interface
design of the existing
courseware been
developed, and has this
contributed to the quality of
the interface design?
Part 3
Determine the current development process.
Compare this process
with the guidelines.
Identify the current
relationships among
all stakeholders.
Ethnographic Study
Face-to-face interviews with
the courseware developers
Comparative analysis:
Comparison of the development process with Ministry
guidelines.
RQ4
Drawing from the above:
What principles,
characteristics and
development guidelines can be recommended to benefit
stakeholders in the
Malaysian education
context?
Part 4
Classification and
provision of a revised
set of effective design principles and
practical guidelines.
Comparative analysis
Collate and compare the data
gained from the above
investigations.
Conclusion
Extract effective principles and
guidelines and make
recommendations.
Table 3.1: Research design
37 | Interface Design
As summarised in Table 3.1, this research project has followed three general
stages of research design, as proposed by Noble and Bestley (2005). They are
investigation, information gathering and transformation of information. As per
these recommendations, the researcher arranged this research project by dividing
it into three stages relating to one main research question and four sub-questions.
The stages include the process of reviewing the established literature (Stage 1),
data gathering process by conducting content analyses and field visits (Stage 2)
and transformation of information by transforming all the information gathered
into new findings by report writing (Stage 3). These phases are visualised in the
following diagram (Figure 3.1).
38 | Interface Design
Figure 3.1: Overall research plan
Identify the
interface design
characteristics and principles that have been
established, endorsed and
used
Identify the common
development process
models that have been
established, endorsed and
used
Evaluation of effectiveness
by the different
stakeholders
Data Gathering
Process
Research
Investigation
Research Outcome
Object of Investigation
Research Method
Research Problem
Practical guidelines and
recommendations for the
courseware development
process
Key
A new set of effective
interface design principles
characteristics and components
Comparative analysis
STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3
Transformation
of Information
Content analysis of interactive
courseware
Formal contextual analysis of established literature,
government guidelines, and
courseware uptake
Face-to-face interviews
with the courseware developers
Face-to-face interviews
with principals
Classroom observations
and focus group
discussions with users
(teachers and students)
In-depth interviews
with teachers
RQ3
RQ4
RQ1
RQ2
39 | Interface Design
3.2.1 Stage 1: Research Investigation: Reviewing established
literature
Noble and Bestley (2005) point out that determining the research questions is the
most important aspect of any research project, and that such questions are
determined by reviewing the literature relating to the topic. Therefore, the initial
stage of the research process for this project involved reviewing the appropriate
literature to help define the research problem and identify the research questions.
The preliminary literature review involved three disciplines, namely interface
design, interaction design, and interactive learning experiences, and it included
both international literature and focal literature on the Malaysia context.
Investigations of recent reports from the Malaysian Ministry of Education were
also used as a primary source to establish the research context and determine the
gap in knowledge and the emergent research problem. Out of this preliminary
literature review, a research problem was established, and research questions were
formulated. It also helped to establish the context and scope of the project, its
conceptual frameworks and the project design, including the research methods
and instruments appropriate for the research problem and research questions.
3.2.2 Stage 2: Data Gathering Process
After identifying the research problem, questions and appropriate research
methods, the second stage involved the process of primary and secondary data
collection in order to answer the research questions. This involved gathering
information from various sources, through six different methods. The methods of
data collection are explained in detail in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 below but first a
summary of the unfolding of data collection may be useful.
The process of data collection first involved a contextual document analysis
which included the following steps: (1) collection and analysis of established
interface design principles and guidelines from the international literature, (2)
collection and analysis of focal literature on Malaysian courseware, (3) review
and analysis of reports from the Malaysian Ministry of Education on the extent of
courseware uptake in the Malaysian Smart School Project, (4) collecting,
40 | Interface Design
reviewing and analysing the model of software development recommended in the
international literature, and (5) collection and review of the guidelines provided to
the courseware developers by the Malaysian Ministry of Education.
Secondly, the data process involved a content analysis of the interactive Science
courseware that has been developed for primary schools in the Malaysian Smart
School Project by the Ministry. Thirdly, data was gathered through field visits to
several primary schools involved in the Malaysian Smart School Project. This
involved: (1) face-to-face interviews with the school principals to determine
information including the current quantity and frequency of uptake of the
interactive courseware at the schools, which packages are used most in the
classroom, and any specific difficulties experienced by the school in
implementing the courseware, (2) classroom observations to gauge users‟
engagement with the interactive courseware and any difficulties they encounter,
(3) focus group discussions to gather details on users‟ perceptions of the interface
design of the interactive Science courseware, and (4) in-depth face-to-face
interviews with teachers to established their perceptions of the educational
effectiveness of the courseware through detailed feedback.
Finally, face-to-face interviews were held with the courseware developers of the
courseware. This was important to help form an understanding of how the current
courseware has been designed and whether it is the cause of any problems that
have arisen. This involved ascertaining whether established international
development processes have been followed, the degree of implementation of the
Ministry guidelines, the common processes that have been adopted, and the level
of involvement of the various stakeholders in the current production and
development process.
3.2.3 Stage 3: Transformation of information
All of the information collected during Stage 2 was then compiled systematically
and analysed thoroughly in the transformation of information stage, which
involved analysing the data to evaluate, create meaningful comparisons and draw
41 | Interface Design
conclusions from the data gathered. All the sources, processes and outcomes from
data gathering are summarised in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2: Stage 3 – Transformation of information
In particular, a comparative analysis was conducted of the information gathered
on established interface design principles from the formal contextual analysis of
the international literature against those outlined in the guidelines provided to
developers by the Ministry as well as against those evident in the content analysis
of the current courseware. Contextual document analysis has also helped to
provide a comparison of the software development models established in the
international literature with the Ministry guidelines that are provided to the
developers and the current practices.
Transformation of information
Identify principles,
characteristics and components that have been established,
outlined and used
Evaluating the effectiveness through analysis of end-users’
observations and feedbacks
Comparing the current process to those model in international
literature and Ministry guidelines
Comparative analysis of
data gathered
Practical guidelines and
recommendations
A new set of effective interface design principles,
characteristics and components
for interactive courseware in the Malaysian context
Understanding of courseware development process and
interface design production
Comparing principles used in the courseware to those in international literature and
Ministry guidelines
Identify the established models and the processes outlined in
the Ministry guidelines
42 | Interface Design
The data gathered from school principals‟ and teachers‟ interviews provided a
deeper understanding of the extent of courseware uptake and any difficulties
experienced by the school in implementing the interactive courseware, while
classroom observations and focus group discussions with teachers and students
who use the courseware helped the researcher to clarify how interface design
components affect users‟ interaction and overall learning experiences. These
outcomes then helped to establish what principles, characteristics, and
components should be recommended for the developers of future interactive
science courseware.
Subsequently, the data from face-to-face interviews with the courseware
developers helped the researcher to explain the developers‟ attitudes towards the
role of interface design in interactive courseware, as well as the strengths and
weaknesses of the Ministry guidelines, and hence to establish the reasons behind
problems arising in the interface design.
In summary, at this final stage, the data collected from Stages one and two was
compared and analysed in order to establish the extent, precise nature and reasons
for issues with the interface design of the interactive courseware. From this, two
major outcomes could be established: a new set of interface design principles,
characteristics and components that can serve to increase uptake and the
effectivity of future Malaysian interactive Science courseware and practical
guidelines for future software development, including recommendations around
workflow, processes and stakeholder involvement.
3.3 Research setting, population and sampling
In this research project, two research setting were involved. The primary research
setting can be described as the place where the interactive courseware is delivered
and used, namely Malaysian Smart Schools, while the secondary research setting
can be described as the place where the interactive courseware is developed,
which is the developer‟s offices. Observations and interviews were conducted in
site in these contexts because, as Chapman and McNeill (2005) have argued,
familiarity of the environment to informants is important because it can affect the
43 | Interface Design
way participants behave or feel and how they respond to questions and also
because it allows the researcher to observe the full context in which the
informants work.
Overall, four groups of participants were involved in this study. They consist of a
representative sample of the school principals, teachers and school students
involved in the Smart School Project, and a representative sample of ten
courseware developers. The purpose of including these four groups of participants
was to gain a better understanding of any differences in perception regarding
specific aspects of the interface design and its effectivity.
3.3.1 Primary research setting, population and sampling
Smart Schools in Malaysia were the primary research setting for this project. The
focus of the study was on primary schools because, according to the literature, the
most problematic interface design within the interactive courseware occurs in
courseware used at primary school level (Ministry of Education, 2006). Twenty
primary schools have been involved in the Smart School Project in Malaysia
(Ministry of Education, 2004). Within this cluster, there are three different types
of Smart School: a new primary Smart School, a state primary Smart School, and a
remote primary Smart School. In this research project, six schools were selected
as a representative sample, including two of each type of Smart School.
Permission to conduct the study in Malaysia and involve the schools was sought
from the Malaysian Ministry of Education by writing to the chairperson, and it
was granted prior to contact with the participants. (The letter is included in
Appendix 1.) Along with the approval by the Ministry, a list of six primary school
names was provided (refer to the list of primary schools in Appendix 2). Based on
this list, the principal of each school was approached to gain approval for the
school to participate. The principals were informed of the intention to interview
them at the schools and agreement was obtained from these participants. (A
sample copy of a principal consent form is attached as Appendix 3.) The teachers
and students were also contacted prior to the study to gain their agreement to
44 | Interface Design
participate in this study and a letter of consent was received from each in line with
the ethical clearance processes outlined below.
3.3.2 Secondary research setting, population and sampling
The interactive courseware used within the Smart School Project has been
developed by the Malaysian Ministry of Education in conjunction with hundreds
of private courseware developers. The courseware developers must go through a
tender process by submitting an application with a sample of their past work and a
financial plan to the Ministry. The Ministry then appoints them on a case by case
basis. Because this research project focuses specifically on the interactive Science
courseware for primary schools, only courseware developers who have been
involved in developing it were included in the sample. To contact them, a list of
courseware developers was obtained from the Ministry, which provided the
contact details of twenty courseware developers. All twenty were contacted
through email and telephone, seeking an interview. Ten developers agreed to
participate and were included in the study. (A sample copy of their consent is
attached as Appendix 5.)
3.4 Ethical issues and other considerations
Ethical considerations are associated with this research project, since the process
of inquiry has involved interviewing and observing human beings. Great care has
been taken to avoid any harm to the participants. A number of aspects were
considered, as set out in this section. In this regard, a comprehensive QUT Ethical
Clearance application was submitted on 16th January 2009 and approval was
gained on 27 January 2009 (refer to Human Ethic Approval certificate in
Appendix 6).
3.4.1 Informed consent, confidentiality and anonymity
Consent is the protection and respect of self-determination (Cohen & Manion,
1995, p.350). It is the procedure through which individuals choose whether to
participate or not after being informed of the facts that would be likely to
influence their decisions.
45 | Interface Design
This information was provided to potential participants including the school
principals, teachers, parents, and students of primary schools in the Malaysian
Smart School Project as well as courseware developers, in a letter outlining the
purpose of the study, data collection methods and the extent, nature and duration
of participation required of the respondents. A letter guaranteeing confidentiality
was also sent to all participants. It assured participants that the information they
provided would be treated as anonymous through the de-identification of all
responses in the data collection. They were advised that although a research report
would be published, it would only contain figures, percentages and facts obtained
from analysing and interpreting the responses from the completed data. The
respondents were also informed in writing that their participation was voluntary
and they could withdraw from the study without fear of being penalised by the
researcher or, in the case of the students, teachers and parents, by the school.
Written consent was requested from each participant. Each participant signed a
consent letter, placed it in a separate envelope and returned it to the researcher
prior to being involved in the data collection. A sample of the information letter
sent to the school principals is attached as Appendix 7 and that sent to developers
as Appendix 8.
3.5 Methods of data collection
To achieve the aims and objectives of this project, as explained in the Introduction
under Section 1.3, and summarised above in Table 3.1, a multi-method approach
has been adopted. A method is a technique for gathering data (Punch, 2004;
Wadsworth, 1997) and each research method carries underlying assumptions
(based on an epistemology), as well as approaches and strategies, which provide
“a context for the process involved and a basis for its logic and its criteria” (Crotty,
1998, p.66). As Irwin (2008) points out, “multiple methods may provide different
lenses of perception of some particular state of affairs” (Irwin, 2008; p.415) and,
as he goes on to establish, this approach can contribute to the trustworthiness of
the data collected. Various theorists have established that using different methods
helps to mitigate the shortfalls of each individual research method (Plano Clark et
al., 2008; Creswell, 2033; Lapan, 2004) as well as different methodologies (Plano
Clark et al., 2008). Therefore, as Painter and Rigsby (2005) point out, the use of
46 | Interface Design
various methods increases confidence in the research findings and provides a
clearer understanding of the problem.
Employing a combination of different methods in one research project can also
be referred to as a triangulation of data sources, which strengthen a study (Cowger
& Menon, 2001; Irwin, 2008; Creswell, 2033; Lapan, 2004). This triangulation
metaphor was used in this research project because data has been derived from six
different methods of data collection, which have been adopted to provide a greater
degree of understanding and to ensure that meaningful information was obtained.
These methods, including a contextual analysis, content analysis, face to face
interviews, non-participant classroom observations, focus group discussions and
in-depth interviews are explained in detail below.
3.5.1 Contextual analysis
A contextual analysis is a method that involves analysing a text to assess the
meaning of a word or concept from the surrounding context and an assessment of
similarity and difference in the qualities that characterize it within the content of
texts (Manning & Schütze, 2002). The process of contextual analysis in this
research project focused on retrieving the principles, characteristics, components,
guidelines that are most often recommended for effective interface design from
international books and journal articles as well as articles that have been written in
the context of Malaysia. It also focused on reviewing the literature to establish the
model of development process that is most frequently recommended. The current
guidelines that are provided by the Ministry to developers were also analysed to
determine the correlation between the principles established by international
scholars and those provided in the Ministry guidelines. In addition, reports on the
uptake of the interactive courseware that have been compiled by the Ministry
were also reviewed to determine the current level of courseware usage. From
these various contextual references, a comprehensive comparative analysis of the
documents was produced.
47 | Interface Design
3.5.2 Content analysis
Content analysis is a technique used for determining content, including
consistency and differences between multiple variables within documents or
artefacts (West, 2001). It can be conducted manually or by computer to determine
patterns and generalities within a sample. According to Neuendorf (2002), to
minimise the risk of research bias, most content analysis involves the
establishment of various pertinent categories and is usually undertaken through a
coding system.
A significant part of the research material in this project was gathered through a
content analysis of the interactive courseware for Science subjects in the
Malaysian Smart School Project. As the aim of the research project was to
measure the quality of interface design in the interactive Science courseware by
comparing it against the interface design principles established in the international
literature, as well as Ministry guidelines, this was an appropriate method of data
gathering. It not only allowed the researcher to analyse the strengths and
weaknesses of the interface design principles, characteristics and components in
the sample courseware through comparison of its characteristic with established
principles, it also helped to establish whether the Ministry guidelines have been
followed by the developers.
In order to ensure the validity of the data, a coding system was first developed by
the researcher to determine themes and categories. Through this systematic
thematic coding and categorising, the researcher determined the similarity and
differences between the principles in the literature, those in the Ministry
guidelines and those evident in the courseware.
3.5.3 Face-to-face interviews
Face-to-face interviews can be effective in gathering information about people‟s
actions, beliefs, thoughts and perceptions (DeMarrais & Lapan, 2004). An
interview is a process through which respondents are asked questions by a
researcher and their responses are recorded (Vockell & Asher, 1995). Johnson
(2008) has suggested that an interview can be conducted through a printed
48 | Interface Design
questionnaire (completed by mail, or email), by telephone or face-to-face,
however, to reduce interviewer bias, the researcher usually interacts with the
respondents directly so that they can observe non-verbal expressions, which
would not be observed otherwise. Face-to-face interviews can be semi-structured
or unstructured, with closed format or open-ended questions. Common techniques
used for documenting the interview include note taking, video recording and
audio-taping (Johnson, 2005).
This method is recommended by many social science researchers, especially when
conducting research related to education (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). As
Johnson (2005) has established, face-to-face interviews are useful for establishing
comparative data, which allows the researcher to compare attitudes and opinions,
as well as to reduce bias.
This research project therefore used face-to-face interviews with open-ended
questions as a method of gathering in-depth information on attitudes, experiences
and the wider perspectives of the stakeholders. The interviews were conducted in
the respondents‟ natural settings. In essence, interviews were conducted at school
principals‟ and teachers‟ offices, as well as developers‟ offices through the use of
standardised procedures, where every participant in a sample group was asked the
same questions in the same way. A videotape and audio recorder were used to
record all the interview sessions.
1. Face-to-face interviews with the school principals
The purpose of face-to-face interviews with the school principals was to seek a
broad view of the issues faced by the schools in the uptake of the courseware. Six
school principals were approached by way of a letter, after gaining a list of
relevant candidates from the Ministry. Before the interviews, the school principals
were assured that their identity would remain private through the de-identification
of their responses and they were advised that they had the opportunity to
withdraw from the interview at anytime. After gaining the school principals‟
agreement to be research participants, and receiving a signed statement of
informed consent, a list of the questions to be asked of them was mailed in
advance.
49 | Interface Design
The individual interviews then took place at a time convenient to the principals, in
their school offices. The language used in the interviews was primarily Malay,
while the guiding questions were asked in English.
At the conclusion of each interview, the researcher recapped all the key points in
the information provided and sought corrections or clarifications. The interviews
were then transcribed from audio tape in Malay and the National Institute of
Translation Malaysia translated it into English. All of the transcripts were then
analysed by categorising the answers into several themes, which are detailed in
Chapter Five.
2. Face-to-face interviews with the courseware developers
The main purpose of face-to-face interviews with the courseware developers was
to determine their current development processes and practices of interface design,
as well as their understanding of the role of interfaces as well as the extent of their
adherence to the Ministry guidelines and any issues that arise from them. In total,
twenty developers were approached by email and telephone and only ten
developers (n=10) confirmed their willingness to participate in the interviews.
Prior to the interviews, the same processes were conducted as for the school
principals. It was explained that any comments would be de-identified as an
anonymous response and that they had the opportunity to withdraw from the
interview at anytime; then the developers were asked for signed consent. The
interviews took place at a time convenient to the developers and were conducted
in their offices. The same interview techniques and recording procedures
described above in relation to the school principals were followed.
3.5.4 Non-participant classroom observations
Observation is one of the most straightforward ways to gather information and
verify what is happening in a particular context. As Montgomery (2002) suggests,
it is particularly useful during the exploratory phase of an investigation, and can
help to generate insights into what is happening and why. The term observation is
open to a wide range of interpretation, but this study takes the definition offered
50 | Interface Design
by Jorgensen (1989), who defines it as a method to gather data in two inter-related
settings: the physical setting (i.e. the actual physical environment and its
organisation), and the human setting, (the organisation of people, as groups or
individuals).
A common definition of observation as it is used in educational settings is
„watching‟ and „listening‟ to the subject, with subsequent specific analysis and
interpretation (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). Tilstone (1998) expands that
observational approaches can be divided into two major kinds: non-participant
observation, where the researcher is not involved in the group activities but is
present as a passive observer who records the participants‟ activities and draws
conclusions; and participant observations, in which the researcher is involved in
the group‟s activities. Both are associated with ethnographic, qualitative research
and are commonly used in the field of education (in, for example, Goetz &
LeCompte, 1984; Montgomery, 2002; Croll, 1986).
In this research project, non-participant observation was employed as a method
for three reasons. Firstly, as suggested by Fraenkel and Wallen (2003),
observations provide information about what people actually do, so it is appealing
as a means to gather “live” data from “live” situations. Non-participant
observation, where the researcher does not interact with the participant who is
being observed, allows the researcher time to take field notes and reflect on the
observations and issues raised. And, as recommended by Montgomery (2002), the
researcher is relatively less obtrusive, so their impact on the data collected is
minimized.
Classrooms at primary schools in the Smart School Project have provided the
physical setting for non-participant classroom observations in this research project.
The researcher visited the schools and observed the students and teachers using
the interactive courseware in class. They were limited to short-term commitments
of two weeks for each of the six classrooms. Teachers and students were observed
during the periods when they used the interactive courseware in teaching and
learning activities. To ensure that students and teachers did not feel distracted or
51 | Interface Design
uncomfortable during the observations, the researchers watched and listened from
a distance without interacting or participating in classroom activities.
Two periods of observation were conducted for each class. In the first observation
period, the researcher was in the classroom and observed the students and teacher
using the interactive courseware from the back of the room while simply taking
field notes. This session helped to make the participants feel comfortable and
familiar with the researcher being in their classroom. In the second observation
period, the researcher recorded observational notes and recorded activity with a
video camera. The video recording equipment was placed at the back of the class
and at a selected computer monitor. The observational notes were taken on the
spot as an in-tandem resource for the video observational data.
This method was applied to gather data on several factors including: which
aspects and components support and encourage students‟ and teachers‟ interaction,
participation and engagement with courseware interfaces; to what extent does
interface design affect the level of students‟ concentration and access; are any
obstacles encountered; and which components present most difficulties for the
participants. In line with this, the length and level of engagement with the
interactive courseware by the students and teachers was measured. The researcher
also observed how particular interface design components identified during the
content analysis of the interactive courseware facilitate students‟ interactions
(both positively and negatively), and how they accommodate, assist or inhibit the
teachers in using the courseware.
In conducting observations, each page of the observational notes was divided into
two columns: the left column documented what was done, seen and heard and the
right column documented preliminary interpretations of the observations. These
recorded notes and videotapes allowed access to both verbal and non-verbal
elements of the data in subsequent analysis and so facilitated a better insight and
more robust analysis of the students‟ interactions as they engaged with the
courseware, as well as the directions, approaches and levels of enthusiasm of the
teacher.
52 | Interface Design
3.5.5 Focus group discussions
Focus group discussions allow a researcher to interview more than one person at a
time (usually between 6-12 people depending on the objectives of the research
study). They provide a key tool for exploring stakeholder needs through an open-
ended approach, as well as allowing a researcher to clarify issues raised through
other techniques such as observations by asking participants very specific follow-
up questions (Krueger, 1988; Krueger and Casey, 2000; Stewart & Shamdasani,
1990). Focus groups elicit perceptions, beliefs, attitudes and experiences from
multiple points of view and, compared to individual interviews, provide a deep
insight into complex situations (Vaughn, Schumm & Sinagub, 1996). Moreover,
in individual interviews, the respondent may give the answers that he or she thinks
the interviewer wants to hear, while in a focus group discussion, the participants
feel more in control and greater insights can be gained as they debate their views
with others.
Focus group discussions with students were conducted as part of this project to
provide a deeper understanding of the extent to which the interface design of
interactive courseware for the Smart School Project affects students‟ interaction
and engagement. The groups were comprised of 5 to 6 students and sessions were
limited to 15 minutes. This was because numerous educational ethnographic
researchers (for example, Edmunds, 1999 and Goetz & LeCompte, 1984) have
established that students may feel uncomfortable in a large group and aren‟t
engaged longer than this in the discussion. To reduce any anxiety of the students,
the sessions included their teachers in the discussion as a moderator.
In total, six focus group discussions were conducted with 30 students. The
researcher began all the focus group discussions by briefing the students on the
purpose of the discussion and giving clear guidelines on the length and limit of
their involvement. The students were asked open-ended questions, with the
researcher taking notes on all answers provided through the discussion. Each
session was also recorded on audio and videotape with permission from the
participants. Like recording interviews and observations, recording focus group
discussions is useful since it can limit the need to write during the discussion,
53 | Interface Design
which may distract the participants from the conversation (Lang & Heiss, 1998,
p.103). These focus group discussions provided clarification on students‟
responses to the interactive courseware during the observations. The outcomes are
discussed in detail in Chapter Five.
3.5.6 Follow-up in-depth interviews
Follow-up in-depth interviews were also employed as a research method of
information gathering in conjunction with observations and focus group
discussions. This method provides a way to explore more deeply participants‟
actions and also provides opportunities for the participants to explain their
perspectives on what the researcher has observed. Sekaran (2000) suggests that in-
depth, one on one follow up interviews are a way of discovering perceptions,
feelings, opinions, thoughts and interpretations that people give to their
experiences.
According to Silverman (2004), there are two types of in-depth interviews: full in-
depth interviews (lasting from 45 minutes to an hour) and mini-in-depth
interviews (lasting 15 minutes to half an hour respectively). In both, the researcher
can ask open-ended questions and freely use prompts such as “tell me more” or
“could you give me an example?” to investigate and clarify a topic. Frequently,
in-depth interviews involve audio or videotape recordings ,but they also require
the researcher to be a good listener so that answers can be teased out (Kvale,
1996).
In this research project, the researcher carried out mini in-depth interviews with
the Science teachers after the classroom observations and focus group discussions.
In all, six Science teachers were interviewed. The interviews used semi-structured
and open-ended investigative questions that were designed to gain a better
understanding of the teachers‟ experiences, degree of satisfaction and difficulties
with the use and interface design of the interactive courseware. All the in-depth
interviews were recorded via digital voice recorder with the permission of the
interviewees.
54 | Interface Design
The aim of the follow-up in-depth interviews was to enrich the researcher‟s
understanding from the teachers‟ perspectives. In combination with the other
methods that have been described, the objective was to help the researcher to
clarify the strengths and weaknesses of the interfaces and any elements that cause
interaction or engagement problems and, ultimately, to identify specific principles,
characteristics and components of interface design that contribute to the user‟s
engagement and enriched learning outcomes, as well as what obstacles obstruct
these goals.
3.6 Data analysis
Because multiple methods have been used in this research project, different types
of complementary data was gathered, including quantitative data (for example, to
ascertain which courseware titles are most often used and the frequency of
courseware use at schools) and qualitative data (such as the words used by
principals, students and teachers to express their perceptions). It has therefore
been necessary to merge them for the analysis process. As established by Plano
Clark et al. (2008), drawing on both quantitative and qualitative data can result in
a better understanding of the problem at hand. For example, investigating the
international literature, the Ministry guidelines and reports, and the interactive
science courseware, has allowed the researcher to discover and compare the
various interface design principles embedded throughout the data, while the
perceptions of students‟, teachers‟ and developers‟ of interface design and stories
about their experiences with the interactive courseware provide a rich empirical
understanding of the principles in use.
Various analysis techniques have been employed. As Cohen, Manion & Morrison
have noted, “the choice of data analysis techniques must be appropriate for the
kinds of data gathered” (2000, p.82) and, as Neuman elaborates, data analysis
techniques are employed in different ways for qualitative and quantitative data
(2006). For quantitative data, the data analysis process involves entering the raw
data into a computer software package such as SPSS, which can create tables,
graphs and statistics. The output of the quantitative data gathered from surveys for
example can provide useful information which can be interpreted in an attempt to
55 | Interface Design
answer a research question. With qualitative data, the researcher must look for
“patterns, themes, categories and regularities” in the data gathered from the
participants (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000) to explain the respondents‟
experiences, and so provide a better understand the phenomenon studied.
As suggested by Vallance & Lee (2005) and Plano Clark et al. (2008), the analysis
process was continuously undertaken throughout this research project rather than
being undertaken at the end of the data collection. The results were therefore
emergent and led to subsequent investigations. A thematic process was applied to
incrementally sort the information gathered and responses received from
principals, developers and teachers interviews. A (MSWord®) Excel spreadsheet
was used to categorise the data into small clusters around themes related to the
interview questions. Data sets were clustered thematically using a system called
“coding schemes” as defined by Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias (1992). This
involved the process of creating a data index, labelling the source, and sorting the
content into meaningful categories according to a pre-determined list of themes.
As recommended by Silverman (2004), the purpose of such coding schemes is to
categorise the data into smaller clusters of similar content to allow simple analysis
of the data.
In this study, information extracted from the international literature, the Ministry
guidelines and reports was clustered around particular interface design principles.
Similar words that were consistently repeated were used to group the primary data
output, while less frequent words were used as a supporting data output. Words
that overlap in meaning or duplicate one another were combined in this process.
The process of coding information gathered from the interviews was more
complex. First, the tapes of the interviews were transcribed one by one. Then, the
transcriptions were coded according to the occurrence of keywords in
participant‟s responses to the interview questions. After completion of the process
of coding and organising, frequent keywords were sorted into several categories
and themes with the relevant statements clustered around them. Then the
researcher identified potentially useful categories and themes to be included in the
report. Because the interviews with the school principals, teachers and courseware
56 | Interface Design
developers involved a small number of participants, the researcher performed this
analysis manually.
The process of analysing data gathered through non-participant classroom
observation and field notes involved transcribing and formatting the data from the
tape recordings of what the students were doing or saying into a narrative. Then,
the transcripts of the field notes were sorted into categories by looking for the
patterns in the data such as particular behaviours and levels of focus and
engagement with tasks at different points during the software use. A summary for
each category was then written. A qualitative data analysis computer programme
(NVIVO) was used throughout the analysis process. The outcomes from the
analysis helped to ascertain strengths and weaknesses of the interface design in
the courseware as they were experienced by real users.
Similarly, the information collected from the focus group discussions was treated
as raw data. A full transcript was first prepared to provide a complete record of
the discussions. Then, the content of the transcripts was analysed by gauging the
frequency of the words used in the answers and comments, with similar terms
clustered together. The aim of this process was, as before, to look for patterns that
reappeared within the focus group discussions and collate the content of each
comment thematically.
Finally, all of the data drawn from the contextual document analysis, content
analysis of the interactive courseware, interviews with developers, principals and
teachers, classroom observations and focus group discussions was compared.
Persistent and relevant points relating to each research question were collated,
based on the identified themes. This subsequent analysis led to a classification set
of effective principles and practical guidelines for the development process. The
outcomes of this analysis resulted in the conclusions of the research project.
57 | Interface Design
3.7 Conclusion
This chapter has provided the reasons for selecting the chosen methodology and
has outlined how this methodology has unfolded in the research project. In
summary, while this project was not approached as a full ethnographic study,
some ethnographic methods were used in this research project because of their
capacity to ascertain the perceptions and experiences of the teachers and students
in terms of the reception of the interface design of the Smart School interactive
courseware and the courseware developers in terms of the development process.
The data was collected from numerous sources using several complementary
methods including contextual document analysis, content analysis of the
courseware, interviewing courseware developers, school principals and teachers,
and conducting classroom observations and focus group discussions in schools.
The resulting data was analysed inductively by interpreting the meaning of
participants‟ perceptions as they arose.
In the following chapter, the data gathered from the contextual document analysis
and content analysis of the interactive courseware will be presented in detail. The
results from different data sources will also be discussed in relation to the research
questions and objectives.
58 | Interface Design
4. A comparison of Malaysian Smart School
Project courseware with international
interface design principles and government
guidelines
4.1 Introduction
Because a primary goal of this research project has been to identify the strengths
and weaknesses of the interface design within the existing interactive Science
courseware of the Malaysian Smart School Project, the first process of data
collection and analysis was guided by the question: Do the principles for effective
interface design that have been established in the international literature appear in
the Ministry guidelines that have been provided to courseware developers and
have they been applied in the interactive courseware developed for the Smart
School Project.
To establish an answer to this question, the established principles and
characteristics of effective interface design in the international literature were first
identified, then the existing guidelines of the Malaysian Ministry of Education
(hereafter referred as the „Malaysian government guidelines‟) were reviewed.
These two sources therefore were compared in order to identify in-common
principles and any omissions. Following that, a content analysis was conducted on
a sample of existing interactive Science courseware to determine whether the
principles and characteristics established in the literature and outlined in the
Ministry guidelines were evident.
4.2 Contextual document review and analysis
The process of reviewing and analysing established interface design principles in
the literature first involved with compiling a substantial collection of respected
and frequently cited books, journals and online resources on interface and
interaction design. At the local level (in Malaysia), documents relating to the
59 | Interface Design
Malaysian Smart School Project were also collected from the Malaysian Ministry
of Education, including guidelines for the design and production of interactive
courseware that are provided to developers who have been successful in the tender
process for the Malaysian Smart School Project.
With these documents in hand, procedures for a contextual document analysis
were applied. First, the literature of international scholars was read and reread,
and the general principles and characteristics that are recommended were
identified. These were refined through a sorting activity process. As discussed in
the methodology chapter, previous researchers have suggested that sorting
activities are much more manageable if being conducted through a coding system
that uses categories and keywords (Neuendorf, 2002).
Therefore, the general principles and characteristics were sorted by using specific
keywords that were encountered in the sources or, where similar concepts are
expressed through multiple terms, a generalised keyword were adopted to
consolidate the various terms. Through a sorting activity process, these keywords
were then grouped and, based on frequency of occurrence of the keywords; a list
of the most common principles and characteristics that are established and cited in
the international literature was derived. The outcomes are explained in the
following section.
4.2.1Interface design principles in the international literature
Throughout the literature, many scholars propose and promote principles,
guidelines and characteristics to make interface design more effective and to
encourage and accommodate end-users‟ interaction. For this research project, the
broad literature was narrowed down to six key texts for the purpose of a
comprehensive review and the extraction of principles into a manageable data set.
The selection was based on the following criteria:
1. The book and/or article that list clear principles for the effective design of
interfaces for educational courseware.
2. The book and/or article is cited as the genesis for guidelines by multiple
authors, and
60 | Interface Design
3. The book and/or article gives a clear rationale for the guidelines and
principles presented.
The texts that were included on these grounds are include the book by Donald
Norman‟s - “Psychology of Everyday Things” (1998); the book by Ben
Shneiderman's - “Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-
Computer Interaction” (1987), Jakob Nielsen‟s book -“ Designing User Interfaces
for International Use” (1990); Deborah J. Mayhew‟s book- “Principles and
Guidelines in Software User Interface Design” (1992); Wilbert O. Galitz‟s book -
“The Essential Guide to User Interface Design: An Introduction to GUI Design
Principles and Techniques” (2002); and the book by Jenny Preece‟s - “Interaction
Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction” (1994). They are discussed below
through a brief overview of each:
1. Donald Norman‟s (1998) “Psychology of Everyday Things”
Norman argues that principles are needed to guide the design process and he
simply suggesting to designers that products should be intuitive is not enough. He
also argues that it is very important for courseware developers to understand the
needs of end-users and advocates that listening to intended users as a basic
strategy for creating effective interface designs. This process of „User-centred
design‟ should be accompanied by a number of characteristics that draw on
knowledge, needs and abilities of the users who will use the software, to ensure
the usability and understand-ability of products can be improved.
Norman‟s principles are based on the concept of a “user mental model”, which is
can be described in brief as the user‟s perception of the interface design, which
determines the relationship between the user and the software. Out of this,
Norman establishes seven general principles for effective interface design. By
keywords, they include „visualisation‟ (i.e. a clear visual explanation of how the
application actually works), effective feedback (sending information back to the
user about on actions taken and what has occurred through image, sound or
animation or combinations of these), user constraints and freedoms, natural
mappings (onto existing user knowledge and experience), consistency (the use of
61 | Interface Design
similar elements, rules and operations throughout), flexibility, and a conceptual
model.
2. Ben Shneiderman's (1987) “Designing the User Interface: Strategies for
Effective Human-Computer Interaction”
Motivated to improve the usability of applications, Shniederman articulates a set
of principles for effective interface design that are derived from heuristic
evaluations of users‟ experience. In which, Shniederman argues is a quick, cheap,
and easy method for evaluating interface design. However, he also emphasises
that designing interfaces is a complex and highly creative process that blends
experience and careful consideration of numerous technical issues.
Moreover, Shniederman‟s principles are focused on the productivity of users, the
usability of the product, and are intended to help and facilitate rapid learning and
performance, and a high degree of user satisfaction. Like Norman, he emphasises
the role and experience of end-users in the principles he espouses. The primary
eight principles, which are referred to as the “golden rules for effective interface
design”, reflect this. They are (by keywords): consistency, sequences, (sequences
that require the same thing in similar situations), familiarity (similar terminology
and comparable commands in prompts, menus, help screens; and consistent
colour), an efficient feedback (the interface should offer informative, immediate
feedback from the system), simplicity, reversibility, constraints, and reduced
short-term memory load. However, Shniederman principles are not only intended
to help to create effective interface design but also to enhance interaction design.
3. Jakob Nielsen‟s (1990)“Designing User Interfaces for International Use”
Also concerned with the importance of end-users in creating effective interface
design, Nielsen believes that users spend most of their time focusing on the
interface design of an interactive application when using it. He has therefore also
adopted and popularised heuristic evaluation to improve the usability of interface
design which, from Nielsen‟s point of view, entails judging software against a
small set of evaluators of usability and compliance with usability principles.
62 | Interface Design
Nielsen argues that the ability of the user to learn to use the application is the most
basic principle, because the first experience many people have with a new system
is that of learning how to use it and they may invest a great deal of money or time
on learning how to use a system. And, the more easily users control the system,
the more they will value the application.
Out of this, the ten general principles suggested by Nielsen (by keywords) are the
principles of visualisation (the use of accepted forms of visual explanations),
familiarity, user constraints and freedoms, consistency, error prevention,
recognition, flexibility (capacity to accommodate different levels of competence
in end-users), aesthetic design (a look and feel that is appropriate to the target
audience and product), efficient feedback (within reasonable time) and user tasks.
4. Deborah J. Mayhew‟s (1992) “Principles and Guidelines in Software User
Interface Design”
Mayhew similarly proposes that interface design should be developed with the
goal of being clear and easily understood. She also highlights the importance of
users‟ interests in the principles she proposes. Compared with the text summarised
above, Mayhew's principles cover a wide range of aspects of interface design.
Primarily however, Mayhew argues that developers should create a clear and
easily accessed interface and, to this end, should accommodate variations in user
skill and preferences.
Although her principles are very similar to other three scholars reviewed above,
and share the aim that an interface design must be clear and easy to understand,
Mayhew indirectly indicates that the users‟ needs and experience should be
harnessed. She argues that often the intended user of a new system is already a
user of other systems. Thus, the across-product compatibility is important since it
allows the user to adapt to a new system quickly.
Based on extensive research in the field of Human-Computer Interaction, the eight
principles she proposes (by keywords) are compatibility (concepts, terminology,
and spatial arrangements that the user is already familiar with, should be
incorporated into the interface as this allows people to reason by analogy and
63 | Interface Design
predicts how to do things they have never done before), consistency (similarities
within a product, rather than across products), familiarity, simplicity and invisible
technology (an interface should be relatively simple to understand by the user who
need not be concerned with „back end‟ processes), flexibility, efficient feedback,
and responsiveness.
5. Wilbert O. Galitz‟s (2002)“The Essential Guide to User Interface Design:
An Introduction to GUI Design Principles and Techniques”
Galitz also identifies principles in common with the other scholars discussed
above. Indeed, Galitz believes that interface is the system for most users, and his
principles are based on User-centred design, where the needs of the user are of
foremost importance and users are involved in the design process. His principles
for creating effective interface design therefore emanate from the perspective of
the end-user and emphasise that interfaces should be organized purposefully in
meaningful and useful way.
The principles he suggested can be described (by keywords) as aesthetics, clarity
(clear elements that are recognizable to users), compatibility, efficient feedback,
consistency, familiarity and flexibility. He also argues that putting related
elements together, differentiating dissimilar elements and making similar things
resemble one another will provide ease of use and that interface design should
keep users informed of any actions or errors through clear and concise language
that they are familiar with. Indeed, he suggests that use terms and concepts that
are familiar to users that taken from the experience of the user who will make
most use of the system.
6. Jenny Preece et al (1994) “Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer
Interaction”
Preece et al. establish user-centred principles for interface design that are tied to
effective user interaction and derived from the field of Human-Computer
Interaction. They argue that interface design must take account of the user‟s needs,
experience and capabilities with the system, accommodate users‟ varying
interaction styles, and limit the frustrations they encounter. And they illustrate the
proposed principles through case studies for the benefit of extending the skills of
64 | Interface Design
developers through examples. Six specific principles (by keywords) relate to
simplicity, visualisation, efficient feedback, consistency, affordances
(consideration of the different type of user interaction required for different types
of system), tolerance (designers should be aware of user‟s physical and mental
limitations (e.g. limited short-term memory) and should recognise that user often
make mistakes).
While, each of these scholars has established principles and guidelines from
different perspectives and research frameworks such as User-Centred Design,
Heuristics, Usability Evaluation, and Human Computer Interaction, by and large
they are similarly focused on understanding and supporting users‟ needs and
providing them with an enjoyable experience and achievement through the
software application.
By applying a thematic system, these various principles have been categorised to
establish a shorter list of in-common principles. Similar concepts have been
categorised under a representative keyword. For example, the principle of
compatibility established by Mayhew serves the same meaning as the principle of
visualisation by Nielsen. Thus, one keyword that is most frequent and recognised
has been applied to encompass both terms.
The process of categorising the principles was concluded by calculating which are
most frequently used. Table 4.1 shows the outcome of this systematic content
analysis of the principles identified in the works of the six authors through
association with relevant keywords.
65 | Interface Design
Key Texts Principles Suggested
(by keywords)
Most in- common
keywords 7 principles based on
user mental model
(Norman, 1998)
1. Visualisation 2. Efficient Feedback
3. User constraints and freedoms
4. Natural Mappings
5. Consistency
6. Flexibility
7. Conceptual models
Consistency
Familiarity
Flexibility
Efficient Feedback
Aesthetically pleasing
10 general principles of
user interface design
for Heuristics
evaluation
(Nielsen, 1990)
1. Visualisation
2. Familiarity
3. User constraints and freedoms
4. Consistency
5. Error prevention
6. Recognition
7. Flexibility
8. Aesthetically pleasing
9. Efficient Feedback 10. User tasks
8 Golden rules of
interface design for
good interaction design
(Shneiderman, 1998)
1. Consistency
2. Familiarity
3. Efficient Feedback
4. Sequencing
5. Simplicity
6. Reversibility
7. Constraints
8. Reduced short-term memory load
8 interface design
principles and
guidelines for software
developers
(Mayhew, 1992)
1. Consistency
2. Familiarity
3. Simplicity
4. Flexibility
5. Efficient feedback 6. Responsiveness
7. Aesthetically pleasing
8. Invisible technology
The basic principles of
interface design
(Galitz, 1997)
1. Aesthetically pleasing
2. Clarity
3. Compatibility
4. Efficient Feedback
5. Consistency
6. Familiarity
7. Flexibility
General principles for
interface design (Preece, 1994)
1. Simplicity
2. Visualisation
3. Efficient Feedback 4. Consistency
5. Affordances
6. Tolerance
Table 4.1: Summary of most frequently occurring recommended principles of
interface design in the key literature (by keyword).
As shown in Table 4.1, the five most frequently occurring principles derived from
the content analysis of the key texts are (in order of frequency) : consistency of
symbols and layout within a product; familiarity with design elements; flexibility
66 | Interface Design
of the system‟s response to the individual differences of users, efficient feedback
provided to the user, and finally, an aesthetically pleasing interface.
4.2.2 An explanation of the key interface design principles
extracted from the international literature
These five persistently cited principles for effective interface designs might be
considered an essential component or even the most minimal guidelines for
courseware developers. The following section describes each of them in detail.
1. Consistency within the design of a product
Throughout the literature, consistency is most commonly cited as an important
principle for providing effective interface design. This principle emphasises the
importance of uniformity throughout a product in aspects of the design such as
colour schemes, screen composition and layout, location of elements (such as
menus and navigation), the sequencing of tasks and content, and function and
behaviours of attributes to ensure that similar operations are performed through
the same elements. All of texts analysed advise designers to avoid inconsistencies
from screen to screen (for example in the background colour used), because
inconsistency is one of the most significant factors negatively affecting the rate of
the application use.
Most of the texts analysed (five out of six) also explain consistency by reference
to the use of similar design features and standard commands. For example,
Norman (1998) and Mayhew (1992) suggest that similar label names and
consistent colour schemes should be used within an application and similar
buttons should be used and be located in consistent places. Shneiderman (1987)
and Preece (1994) therefore suggest that similar icons within sequences of action
and the use of the same terminology will lead to consistency in the presentation of
the interface. And Mayhew (1992) argues that user focus may be increased
through the incorporation of similar features and standard presentations within the
application.
67 | Interface Design
2. Familiarity with elements and functions from prior experience
Interface design is a form of communication design, with its primary goal being to
provide efficient functionality and access to the content of an application. To
achieve this, the use of familiar concepts, terminology and procedures allow the
user to quickly become comfortable with the courseware system. All of the
scholars mentioned above suggest that the principle of familiarity relates to the
use of standardised terminology, icons, signs and layout that relate to the user‟s
prior knowledge– either what they have already learnt through other applications
or in their day to day life. Moreover, through the use of techniques that the user
already understands, and familiar concepts, images and maps that are built upon
real world experiences (through metaphors), users are able to get started and make
progress with the application more quickly.
3. Flexibility of the system‟s response to the individual differences
All of the above-mentioned scholars refer to the principle of flexibility as the
capacity of the application to accommodate different levels of competence.
According to Shneiderman (1987), there are at least three levels of end-users that
must be considered: the novice, the intermittent user and the expert. A novice user
has no syntactic knowledge of the system, while an intermittent user is one with
little syntactic knowledge, and a frequent or expert user has considerable prior
knowledge and experience with similar applications.
While most of the scholars (four out of six of them) state that users need instant
access to the functions they use, along with features that help them to escape or
end the courseware system, these must be understood differently in relation to
different users. Providing clear navigation for example, helps to ensure that all
users are able to quickly learn how to find their way around. In this case, shortcuts
might be provided to the expert user. As Mayhew (1992) points out, a one-click
return to the home-page and a way of confirming where the users are in system, is
necessary on each screen; but as Galitz (2002) and Shneiderman (1998) explain, a
button or link that jumps directly to what users are looking for (for example, the
main menu or the exit button) should appear on every screen to alleviate
frustration with the application, once a user becomes expert.
68 | Interface Design
4. Efficient feedback given to the user
It is well established in the literature that users are most likely to adopt software if
it provides feedback through reporting a current status, action or error message
effectively. Norman (1998) argues that feedback involves sending back
information about what actions have been taken and what has been accomplished.
Shneiderman (1998) also suggests that well designed interfaces should present
appropriate and immediate feedback and place an emphasis on users‟ actions.
Similarly, Galitz (2002) proposes that informative feedback encourages users to
continue with an activity. Nielsen (1990) therefore elaborates that interface design
should notify the user in a clear and understandable way of any relevant actions,
exceptions, changes of state or condition, or errors that have occurred through
sound or visual cues in textual or graphical form. This helps users to gauge the
effects of their actions.
5. The principle of visual communication through an aesthetically pleasing
appearance of the screen
The fifth most frequently mentioned design principle in the literature relates to the
aesthetics of the screen. As Szabo and Kanuka (1998) have established, an
aesthetically pleasing and targeted screen appearance leads to end-users spending
more time using an application. Aesthetics in this sense relates to the “look and
feel” of the interface appearance. If targeted to the user group (in e.g. specifically
for children in terms of colours used, etc) and reflective of the intent of the
application, a well designed aesthetic approach can help to motivate users to adopt
the application.
However, most of the texts analysed in depth (five out of six of them) also explain
that the use of visual design elements should empower the user to clearly see what
functions are available in the courseware and what the courseware is currently
doing. To this end, visual communication elements must be carefully considered
and it must be understood that icons, fonts, colours, animations, graphics and
layout can affect the perceived, as well as real effectiveness of the interface and
application. In essence, aesthetics are one of the higher order needs of end-users
and provide a motivator for users to engage with the courseware system as well as
make sense of it through the visual communication it provides.
69 | Interface Design
Specific characteristics of these common principles also been identified through
analysis conducted. As presented in Table 4.2, which follows, each principle can
be broken down into particular characteristics, which can be complied into
detailed guidelines. For example, the principle of consistency is accompanied by
five particular characteristics that cover aspects of the overall screen layout,
elements used and positioning of the main menus. The principle of familiarity
with elements and functions from prior experience is accompanied by specific
characteristics that include the use of standard commands, concepts and
terminologies that users are already familiar with. The principle of flexibility
involves particular characteristics that provide access for different levels of
intended users such as the use of the elements (such as the text) that are easy to
read and instructions that are direct and clear for the novice users, but must also
include shortcuts. And the principle of efficient feedback given to the user is
based on five characteristics that relate to clear and immediate feedback messages
through for example confirmation dialogue to support the actions of the user. And
finally, the principle of pleasing aesthetics and visual communication involves
characteristics that relate to comfort with the screen appearance and the ability to
achieve information through effective visual communication.
In summary, eighteen specific characteristics were extracted from the literature for
five most commonly cited principles in the international literature. These are
detailed in Table 4.2.
70 | Interface Design
Principle Summary Description Characteristics
The principle of
consistency
within the
design of a
product
The use of design features and
layout of components within
the screen should be consistent and the same actions or
commands should be required
for the same function.
1. Consistent screen layout
2. Persistent use of design elements
3. Persistent position of main menus
4. Consistent tools and navigation bar
5. Same effects for the same action
The principle
of familiarity
with elements
and functions
from prior
experience
To ensure that the system and
functions are easy to learn, the
concepts, terminology, icons
and arrangement of elements
should relate to prior
knowledge and experiences of
users in other contexts.
6. Standard commands should be used.
7. Concepts, icons and terminology
should be used that are familiar from
other applications or real life.
The principle
of flexibility of
the system’s
response to the
individual
differences
The courseware should cater
to different levels of
experience and preferences of
individual users. This includes
aspects of the navigation and functionality.
8. Design elements must be suitable to
the intended user (age, experience etc)
9. Text used must be easy to read and
appropriate.
10. Navigation should be self-evident as
well include shortcuts, actions should
be visually evident but commands
may be used for efficiency
11. Sound and/or text should be provided
as alternatives to visual icons to cater
for different learning styles.
The principle
of efficient
feedback given
to the user
The system should constantly
notify the user via clear and
immediate feedback on each
action performed to inform
them of where they are, what
they have done, and what the
system needs them to do next.
12. Constantly keep the user informed
about their current location.
13. Provide immediate feedback on
actions performed through visual
signs, audio effects, animations or a
combination of these.
14. Feedback given should be informative
and helpful to the user.
15. Feedback messages should be clear
and easy to understand.
16. A confirmation dialogue should be
used to prompt action.
The principle
of visual
communication
through an
aesthetically
pleasing
appearance of
the screen
The screen appearance of the
courseware must be both
appropriate to and appealing
to the target group, and ensure
that users can tell what
functions are available, what
alternative actions need to be
taken and what is being done.
17. Provide the user with the elements
that are visually enjoyable to use.
18. Carefully consider the effectiveness
of icons, fonts, colours, animations,
graphics and layout to make sure that
they are easy to understand and
effective in communication.
Table 4.2: The characteristics of common interface principles, as extracted from
the literature
71 | Interface Design
4.2.3 The Malaysian government guidelines
The Malaysian government, through the Ministry of Education, has provided
detailed guidelines to courseware developers as a tool to guide the development
process of interactive courseware for the Malaysian Smart School Project. The
next process of data collection in this research project involved the analysis of
these guidelines, in order to evaluate them against the principles, characteristics
and guidelines established in the international literature. Following this, an
evaluation of the existing interactive courseware was undertaken to determine
whether principles, characteristics and guidelines established and outlined have
been applied by the courseware developers.
Following the same coding and sorting activity process outlined in the previous
section, the principles outlined in the Malaysian government guidelines were
collated and then were checked against the list of principles established in the
international literature. The purpose of this process was to establish the most in-
common interface design principles and characteristics in two different sources
and whether the guidelines are comprehensive, too limited or too broad, when
compared to the principles established in the literature.
These Ministry guidelines contain an introduction and summary of the guidelines‟
purposes, followed by two sections. The first section provides overall architectural
design guidelines with a description of design criteria and principles to be
followed. The second section deals with the design process and production flow.
In this chapter, the first section of the Ministry guidelines is reported (the second
section is discussed in Chapter 6).
An image of the architectural design guidelines provided by the Ministry to
courseware developers is reproduced in Figure 4.1. It contains design standards
for the storyboard design, instructional design, interface design, technical
standards, and references.
72 | Interface Design
Figure 4.1: Part of the Malaysian government guidelines
Within the guidelines, each design aspect is presented with an individual
explanation. A summary of topics and sub-topics is presented in Table 4.3.
Design Aspect Components
Storyboard design Layout
Navigation
Graphics / Animation / Video placement in the overall structure
Content placement in the overall structure
Audio Script inclusion
Instructional
design
Content / Concept / Skill Learning
Practice / Activity
Test / Assessment / Evaluation
Interface design Navigation Montage with the Malaysian Government logo
Screen elements
Text
Graphics
Animations
Audio
Video
Technical
requirements
Specifications
Environment/ contextual requirements of the classrooms
Language and
References
Language English : Oxford Advanced Learner‟s
Dictionary
Malay : Kamus Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka
Sign language Malay : Kod Tangan Bahasa Melayu (KTBM)
English: American Sign Language (ASL)
Table 4.3: Design components covered in the Malaysian government guidelines
for courseware development
73 | Interface Design
The section on interface design standards is the largest component of the
Malaysian government guidelines. It covers the navigation design and screen
design, and focuses on the specifying of the necessary characteristics of the design
elements including text, graphics, animation, audio and video components. The
details that are provided are summarised in Table 4.4.
74 | Interface Design
Interface
design
standards
Necessary Characteristics
Navigation
Introduction section shall be a multimedia presentation, between
15-30 seconds, which shall include any combination of text,
animation, graphics and/or audio.
Users shall have the flexibility to navigate to the next and
previous activity, to pause and continue an activity, and to exit.
All icons must have “mouse over” effects.
Test pages should have a confirmation dialogue.
Every page should be easy to use.
Every lesson must have the same introductory montage with the
Malaysian Government logo to give a standardized look.
Screen Display Colours for the total screen area shall provide contrast between the
foreground and background.
Text
Titles should use capital letters.
Colours used for text shall contrast against the background of
the screen.
Fonts: Sizes and font types shall be limited to no more than 3
variations per page.
Graphics
All graphics must be clear.
All characters used (e.g. animal, human):
1. Must be approved by the Ministry and be used again and
again for consistency
2. Shall be logical and not contradictory to real life situations and must enhance or support learning
3. Biases in graphics or animations (gender, ethnicity, religion,
etc.) must be avoided.
Colours used should be suitable for the age group concerned.
Any visuals should include sound effects to sustain student
interest.
Animations Shall be used for the purpose of supporting and enhancing
learning.
Audio
Voice, music narration, sound or song if include must be
appropriate and should be clear.
Voices used:
1. Voice talent should be appropriate to the gender and age of
the character portrayed in the courseware.
2. Correct pronunciation and clear intonation with neutral ethnic accent must be used.
Audio icons shall be provided to enable users to choose to
listen.
Video Video frames should be at least 240 X 180 pixels
Table 4.4: The characteristics of interface design components identified in the
Malaysian government guidelines.
75 | Interface Design
As shown in Table 4.4, the most emphatic requirements are that interactive
courseware must include a combination of text, animations, graphic images and
audio components; that each page or screen should appear in such a way that it is
clear and easy to use by the intended users; and the same introductory montage
with the Malaysian Government logo also must be included in each lesson. In
addition, specific guidelines are provided to reflect the cultural diversity of
Malaysia. It is stated clearly that the courseware must avoid ethnic, cultural and
religious biases in all graphic images of characters (for example, an animal or
human character). Furthermore, it is also advised that all the audio, especially for
the talent voice, should have a clear intonation with neutral ethnic accent and
correct pronunciation. All of these design components must be approved by the
Ministry; making the guidelines absolute.
It must be noted that the guidelines highlight only these basic requirements, which
are not explained in detail, so it making difficult to clearly interpret and gain a
comprehensive understanding of the requirements at face-value. Nonetheless, the
same keywords system was used in the analysis of the guidelines, using similar
keywords that were employed in the content analysis of the literature. The
categorising of the guidelines against the keywords was conducted manually.
Four categories were clearly identified. They are (by keywords): consistency (of
the style and standard elements within a product); familiarity (through
recognizable elements and functions found in other systems and real-life
activities); flexibility (where elements and commands should incorporate
flexibility to accommodate different user preferences and levels of expertise) and
efficient feedback (given to the user on their location, after actions, and prompts
to action).
The principle of an aesthetically pleasing appearance of the screen was not
explicitly mentioned, however if we consider this principle in terms of its
characteristics, it becomes more clearly evident, as do the other recommended
principles. The key principles extracted from the literature are therefore mapped
against the corresponding summaries of the required characteristics that appear in
the Ministry guidelines in Table 4.5.
76 | Interface Design
Principles Malaysian Guideline
Descriptors
Characteristics in the literature Characteristics in the Malaysian guidelines
The principle of
consistency within
the design of a
product
The use of design features for colours, text, characters, and icons
should be consistent and the system
should provide similarities in
commands, actions, prompts,
menus, and help screens.
Similarities of the screen layout Clear sequencing of the screen appearance
Consistency of elements used Similarities of colours used across screens
Same effects for the same action Limited text styles
Persistent position of main menus Use of similar characters throughout
Consistent tools and navigation bar The same actions should yield the same result
Consistent positioning of main menus
Standard tools on navigation bars
The same montage used for the introduction to be used
in all pages
The principle of
familiarity with
elements and
functions from
prior experience
The design features of the text,
graphics (such as characters or
icons) and audio should be based
on familiar characteristics. These
standardised elements could ensure
the intended users will be familiar
with the product.
Standard commands should be used. Human and animal characters shall be logical and not
contradictory to real life situations
Concepts and terminology should be used that
are already familiar from other contexts.
The human and animal characters used should be
familiar characters.
The principle of
flexibility of the
system’s response
to the individual
differences
The selection of design features
including text, audio, graphic,
video or animation shall avoid
biases of ethnicity or religion, be
appropriate for the age group
concerned, and accommodate a wide range of different users‟
abilities and preferences in order to
ensure the content is easy to learn
and easy to use by all users.
Design elements must be suitable to the
intended user (age, experience etc)
Provide the user with buttons to pause, continue, go back
or exit the activity
Text must be easy to read and appropriate. Provide the user with appropriate working sounds
Provide the user with flexible navigation
including self-evident paths and shortcut options
Provide confirmation dialogues to prompt user actions
Avoid biases of ethnicity and religion in any images
Provide users with appropriate working sound
and/or text as alternatives to visual icons and
feedback.
Avoided biases of ethnicity and religion in colour used
Visual images must be suitable for the age of the user
Colours must be suitable to the age of the user
The audio used for human characters must be
appropriate to gender and age of the character
The audio effects used as alternatives to symbols or
icons must be age-appropriate
The text characters must be easy to read
Table 4.5: Contextual analysis: The principles, guidelines and characteristics outlined in the Malaysian government guidelines mapped against
the principles in the international literature.
77 | Interface Design
Principles Malaysian Guideline
descriptors
Characteristics in the literature Characteristics in the Malaysian guidelines
The principle of
efficient feedback
given to the user
Any user action should have a
confirmation dialogue that is
provided either in sound or images
to sustain user interest.
Constantly keep the user informed. Provide accurate responses in the confirmation dialogue.
Provide the user with the immediate feedback
on actions that the user performs by using visual signs, audio effects, animations or combination
of these.
Provide users with visual or audio effects on actions that
the user performs.
Feedback given after a response by the users
should be informative and helpful.
Allow user to operate the task properly
Feedback messages should be clear and easy to
understand.
Confirmation dialogue helps to ensure user
actions.
The principle of
visual
communication
through an
aesthetically
pleasing
appearance of the
screen
The screen appearance of the
courseware must ensure that users
can tell what functions are
available, what alternative actions
need to be taken and what is being
done.
Provide the user with the elements that are easy,
effective, and enjoyable to use.
Each element used shall be attractive to the intended
users and encouraging.
Carefully consider the effectiveness of icons,
fonts, colours, animations, graphics and layout.
Table 4.5: Continued
78 | Interface Design
In general, the mapping in the Table 4.5 shows that many of the descriptions and
characteristics outlined in the Malaysian government guidelines are quite similar
in spirit to the characteristic of the principles that are most frequently mentioned
in the key literature. For instance, the principle of consistency emerges within the
prescribed characteristics in the Malaysian government guidelines through a focus
on requiring a similar position; similar design features for elements such as
colours, text, characters, and icons; standard commands or actions; style of the
main menu, as well as the use of consistent colours, text and characters. Another
important requirement is that the interactive courseware shall commence with the
same introductory montage in each product. Therefore, we can conclude from this
comparative analysis that both, the international literature and the Ministry
guidelines proposed the similar characteristics to consistency within a product.
In terms of the principle of familiarity, the Malaysian government guidelines
highlight that design features (such as graphics, icons, audio) should be used
repeatedly throughout the system and the courseware packages more broadly, and
that images of human characters should be based on familiar characters from
books and elsewhere. This standardisation is intended to ensure that the intended
users will immediately feel a sense of familiarity with the courseware, and
illustrates a concern for the needs of the users in the Ministry guidelines. The
international literature therefore similarly highlights the importance of
standardisation of concepts, terminology and arrangements of the elements in
ensuring the effectiveness of interface design.
With regards to the principle of flexibility, the characteristics of this principle as
they are outlined in the literature include the importance of elements and
commands accommodating different user preferences and levels of experience.
This is reflected in the characteristics recommended by the Ministry that are
focused on providing icons, visual images, colours, fonts and sound that are
appropriate to the age of the users. It also reflected through reference to the local
context, in the instruction to avoid biases regarding ethnicity, culture and religion
in any images and colours used within the courseware, to help in ensuring that the
software is suitable to all Malaysian ethic groups. That is, the Ministry guidelines
are concerned with the important of accommodating diverse users including the
79 | Interface Design
particular demands of the local context (a factor that has not been mentioned by
any of the six scholars whose literature was reviewed).
In terms of the principle of the efficient feedback, three characteristics are
outlined in the Ministry guidelines. They are that the interface design shall allow
users to perform the task properly, users must be provided with the visual or audio
effects upon the actions they perform, and accurate responses must be made
through a confirmation dialogue. This is to ensure the users are kept informed
about where they are, what they are doing, and what the system requires as well as
to sustain user interest. Therefore, it can be concluded through the comparative
analysis of the guidelines against the literature that the Ministry guidelines are
relatively similar in relation to the principle of feedback messages that are clear,
useful, persistent and easy to understand.
While the principle of aesthetics in not explicitly mentioned in the Ministry
guidelines as a specific requirement as it comprehensively is in the international
literature, some of its characteristics are clearly identifiable. For example, the
characteristics outlines by the Ministry include that the design must be attractive
and encouraging the intended users (which is similar to descriptions explained in
the literature), and visual communication is also indirectly referred to through the
requirement that all elements must be clear, easy to understand. Thus, it can be
concluded that the principle is considered in the Ministry guidelines. However, as
established in the literature, while rating the aesthetic appearance of the screen can
appear to be very subjective, aesthetic visual appearance is important as it helps to
gain the attention of users and raises their interest in using the courseware. This
aspect of the principle of aesthetics should therefore be more clearly articulated in
the Ministry guidelines in future in order to provide a clearer understanding of its
importance to future developers.
80 | Interface Design
4.3 Content analysis: Interactive science courseware for
the Malaysian Smart School Project
After completing the contextual and document analysis of the literature and
Ministry guidelines, and establishing the specific principles and characteristics
that are recommended by both, the data collection and analysis process proceeded
to a content analysis of a sample of interactive Science courseware developed for
the Malaysian Smart School Project. The purpose of this analysis was to conduct
an empirical evaluation of the courseware through its comparison with the
recommendations of the literature and the Ministry guidelines.
Interactive Science courseware is part of the pilot project software used in the
teaching and learning of Science subjects for year 3 (9 year old students) in
designated schools in the Malaysian Smart School Project. This interactive
courseware was developed by multimedia developers/vendors appointed by the
Ministry of Education. The design platform for this interactive courseware is
stand-alone packages of CDs (comprised of three CDs per pack) as shown in
Figure 4.2. The language used is English.
Figure 4.2: Interactive Science courseware for the Malaysian Smart School
Project
81 | Interface Design
The process used in this evaluation was content analysis. As mentioned in the
methods section in Chapter 3, it is defined in the literature as a reliable technique
for determining consistency and differences between multiple variables within
documents, artefacts or screen-based content (West, 2001). The overall
interpretation and evaluation should be conducted through a coding system to
determine patterns and generalities within a sample (Neuendorf, 2002). A sample
of interactive science courseware (3 main CDs enclosed three main topics with
twenty-six corresponding lessons topic) was therefore scrutinised through content
analysis, and a comparison was made through a sorting activity process using a
coding system.
That is, in this research project, content analysis was used as a technique to
ascertain what principles, characteristics and components have been consistently
used in the sample of interactive Science courseware and then compare these to
the principles established in the literature and the Ministry guidelines. The process
began by reviewing each screen of the courseware. The five principles described
above, namely consistency, familiarity, flexibility, efficient feedback and
aesthetics were used as referents. The occurrence of the principles and
characteristics was recorded and calculated manually as the review was conducted.
4.3.1 Overview of the interactive Science courseware
As an overview, the interactive Science courseware consists of three main topics,
namely: Learning about living things: Animal and plants; The world around us
(Part 1); and The world around us (Part 2). Each main topic is presented as a
series of lessons. For this research study, three main topics and the twenty-six
corresponding lessons were reviewed. Table 4.6 shows how these lessons are
arranged in the content of a courseware package.
82 | Interface Design
Main Topic No. of lessons and titles
Learning about
living things:
Animal and plants
1. External Features of Animals
2. How to Group Animals 3. Different Ways to Group Animals
4. External Features of Plants
5. How to Group Plants 6. Different Ways to Group Plants
The world around
us (Part 1)
1. Magnets Attract or Repel
2. Handling Magnets 3. Material that Magnets Attract
4. Strengths of Magnets
5. Uses of Magnets 6. How To Make A Bulb In A Circuit Brighter or Dimmer
7. Materials that Allow Electricity to Flow Through
8. A Switch 9. Bending, Twisting, Stretching and Squeezing a Spring
10. Springs Stretch Differently
11. The Uses of Springs
The world around
us (Part 2)
1. Material that Can Absorb Water
2. Some Material Can Absorb More Water Than Others
3. The Uses of the Ability of Material to Absorb Water 4. What is Soil Made Up of?
5. The Flow of Water Through Different Type of Soil
6. Suitable Soil for Plant Growth
7. Different Substances have Different Properties 8. Unsafe Substances
9. Separating Mixtures
Table 4.6: Content of the interactive science courseware for year 3 (9 year old
students)
Each CD in the suite of interactive Science courseware includes some preliminary
components, which can be described as a front page or opening page, an
introductory page, followed by a tutorial section and/ or enrichment activity
section followed by a test section. Detailed explanations on each section follow.
1. The Opening Sequence
Upon inserting the courseware into the CD drive, the application automatically
plays an introduction. First, both the Ministry logo and the name of the Malaysian
Ministry of Education are presented together. Then the subject name and year
level are shown, as illustrated in Figure 4.3.
83 | Interface Design
Figure 4.3: Screenshots of the opening sections of year 3 science courseware
2. The Introduction
An introductory screen then shows the title of the main topic and each lesson and
a connected lesson topic (as shown in Figure 4.4a). A button at the bottom of the
page offers users the option to skip this introduction. As shown in Figure 4.4b,
brief information is then provided about the main topic, lesson topics and the
overall theme to ensure students and teachers understand the nature of the lesson
that is going to be presented.
To start using the application, users only need to click on which lesson topic
she/he would like to learn. The text and graphics are complemented by animation
and sound/audio components. Indeed, most of the introductory section is
presented in the form of an animated drawing.
Figure 4.4a: Screenshot for the introduction section presenting the courseware
title and lesson topic
84 | Interface Design
Figure 4.4b: Screenshots of the introduction showing the topics that can be
selected and the change state when a lesson has been chosen.
3. The Lesson or Tutorial Page
After the application is launched and a topic chosen, students are presented with
an animated scene that introduced the title of the lesson. This leads to a tutorial or
lesson page, which contains a list of links to content. In terms of the navigation
system, this employs a standard interface design rule by integrating the menus of
the three sections into one page, which allows students and teachers to navigate
through the whole of the courseware easily and out of sequence if desired.
When a link is selected, a new screen opens, which contains several fields. A
heading frames the lesson title at the top of the screen, which provides
information on the lesson chosen. The main navigation remains visible at the
bottom of the screen, which allows users to go back to the main page to select a
different topic or exit from the application. Above it, a series of menu buttons
frame of the separate lessons that are incorporated in the topic. A screenshot of an
example lesson page is shown in Figure 4.5a.
85 | Interface Design
Figure 4.5a: Screenshot of the lesson topic or tutorial page and navigation bar
There are four or five options in these menus that scaffold each lesson. They
include „Introduction‟, „Learning‟ (which may have multiple parts), „Test‟ and
„Enrichment‟. This menu is located in the bottom centre of the screen and has
mouse over links to indicate that parts of the screen are clickable.
Once the introduction is selected, the application will automatically play the
content according to the intended sequence, starting with the introduction and
ending with the test page. The links change in colour to reflect the current section
that the user is in. Each screen within the lessons includes a combination of text,
graphics, animations and sound/audio components. A screenshot of an example
page of the learning content is shown in Figure 4.5b.
Figure 4.5b: Screenshot of scene within a lesson
Main navigation button
Frames of the lesson title
Menu button
86 | Interface Design
4. The Test Section
The test section contains several features. First, it provides students with an
enrichment activity in order to ensure that they gain in-depth understanding of the
subject content. Like other sections, the test section combines rich multimedia
elements including multiple colours, animations, video and audio components, to
engage users. A variety of question types are then presented. For instance,
multiple-choice methods of answering are provided, which include drag and drop
approaches (shown in Figure 4.6a), filling in working answers (shown in Figure
4.6b), and matching working answers (shown in Figure 4.6c).
Figure 4.6: The introduction to the test page
Figure 4.6a: Questions on the test pages requiring a drag and drop response
For the method of answering through drag and drop, users can choose any answer
by simply clicking on it and dragging it into the question set.
87 | Interface Design
Figure 4.6b: Answering questions on the test pages by filling in the working
answers
For the method of filling in working answers, users are given multiple choice
options. They must type the answer in the space provided or click on an answer
choice.
Another style of answer mode is the mix and match procedure, in which users
must click on the right answer and drag it to the image. Figure 4.6c shows an
example.
Figure 4.6c: Answering questions on test pages by using a mix and match
procedure
Once questions are completed, there is the option to click on the check button to
see whether the answer is correct. If not, the right answer appears. Once users
finish answering all the questions, they must click on the „submit‟ button.
88 | Interface Design
Overall, the content analysis of the interactive science courseware confirms that
each sections uses all five major interface design components outlined in the
Ministry guidelines, namely: text, images, video, sound or audio and animation.
Indeed, most individual pages have been designed with a combination of three to
four component types. For example, screens in the Lesson sections are often
designed with combinations of text and visual images, blended with video or
animations. Thus it can be concluded that the designers of the courseware have
followed the suggestion of the Malaysian government guidelines to incorporate a
combination of rich media.
4.3.2 Principles, characteristics and components used in the
sample of interactive Science courseware
To evaluate the interface design of the interactive Science courseware, an analysis
of it was performed in relation to the key principles, characteristics and
components that have been discussed in the previous sections on the literature and
the Malaysian Government guidelines (Section 4.2.2 and Section 4.2.3). Each
screen was carefully analysed using the keywords derived from the five most
commonly referred to principles and their characteristics, as found in the selected
international literature and in Malaysian government guidelines. Using sorting
activity procedures, the screen pages that contained the principles, characteristics
and components were recorded and the frequencies were calculated.
From the analysis of all screens in the twenty-six lessons in the sample of
interactive Science courseware, all five principles were found, as follows.
1. The principle of consistency within the design of a product
The principle of consistency, which is identified in the literature as one of the
primary principles for creating effective interface design, pertains to the
importance of standardisation in appearance, placement, and actions throughout
the interface, whereby the system should look, act and operate in the same way.
This characteristic is also specified in the Malaysian government guidelines as
one of the characteristics that should be followed by the developers. The review of
89 | Interface Design
the interactive Science courseware indicated that, on the whole, the principle of
consistency is broadly evident.
In terms of design elements, the style of screen layout is consistent in terms of the
standard elements used, as is the introductory montage. A standard style guide is
used for the main menu and titles, and fonts used and image styles are consistent
overall. The same typeface (Arial) is also used consistently within the lesson
topics across the courseware as shown in Figure 4.7.
Figure 4.7: The same typeface is used within the different lesson topics
In terms of titling, the Malaysian government guidelines require the courseware to
provide similar styles in the opening montages and this was found to be the case
(as shown in Figure 4.8).
Figure 4.8: The same style of opening montage in the opening page for different
lesson topics
90 | Interface Design
This similarity was also noted in typefaces used in the title pages, as well as
layout. As shown in Figure 4.9, the same font is used and the position of the
lesson title persists in subtitles and through different lesson topics, whereas
differences appear in the colour used for the typeface.
Figure 4.9: Similar lesson titles
It should be noted that in terms of colour, although the Malaysian government
guidelines explicitly emphasize consistency of colours, not only the titling, but
also the background of the Tutorial sections clearly use different colour themes
for each different lesson topic. Figure 4.10 shows screenshots that illustrate that
while the similar screen layout and styles are used, different colour theme for
different lesson topics employed in the first page of the Tutorial section.
Figure 4.10: Similar styles of screen layout with different colour themes for
different lesson topic
91 | Interface Design
While this may appear inconsistent in terms of the overall product, it has
important functions. The colour differences in the environment of each lesson
indicate a different feel or environment for each lesson, which both differentiates
them from each other, and helps to orientation the user if they are moving back
and forth between lessons. It also serves to aid memory through colour association
if the lesson is returned to at a later time. Since other stylistic factors are stable,
and colour is consistent within lessons, it can be assumed that this is a conscious
and purposeful deviation from the guidelines.
In terms of the use of human characters, the same character is used repeatedly for
the teacher (shown in Figure 4.11) within the lessons in the courseware. And,
while the characters of the children change, they are illustrated in similar cartoon
style.
Figure 4.11: The same characteristic used repeatedly in different lesson topics to
represent the teacher
In terms of navigation, a group of similarly styled icons are used to represent the
various tools of the application and this set of icons is consistently used
throughout. The standard navigation bar (Figure 4.12) is placed in a similar
position at the bottom of each screen (Figure 4.13).
Figure 4.12: Sample of navigation bar
92 | Interface Design
Figure 4.13: The location of the standard navigation bar in the different lesson
topics similar
In conclusion, the content analysis of the courseware shows that the
characteristics relating to the principle of consistency and the related requirements
in the Malaysian government guidelines are largely evident in the design of the
interfaces. Design elements such as fonts and colours are consistent in all respects
but in the purposeful differentiation of topics and, along with persistent icons and
characters and standard positions and layout, the intended audience (particularly
the students) are provided with orientation and a reliable understanding of
commands and their locations across the product. Thus, it has been noted that the
principle of consistency appears have been followed closely in the development of
this interactive courseware. However, this principle will be returned to in the
discussion on the next phase of analysis (observational of fieldwork) in Chapter 5.
2. The principle of familiarity with elements and functions from prior experiences
As has been explained, the perception of an efficient system depends not only on
internal consistency, but the extent to which it conforms to the conventions of
other systems, and so induces a sense of familiarity from the outset. For example,
most applications and web sites use standard navigation bars, familiar icons and
standardised commands, but they also use metaphors and real-life references to
assist users to understand concepts. This provides the perception of familiarity and
also helps to reduce confusion.
93 | Interface Design
The interactive science courseware that has been developed for the Smart School
Project also provides familiarity through the repetition of some visual images,
icons, buttons, and background characters that appear throughout the lessons. As
shown in Figure 4.14, the same animal characters, who is identified as “Sang
Kancil”, is used to explain the lesson content across the courseware. This animal
character is a well-known animal character in Malaysian children‟s‟ bedtime
stories. Furthermore, the use of such well-known animal characters by the
developers provides evidence that the developers of this courseware have
deliberately adopted the principle of familiarity.
Figure 4.14: “Sang Kancil” is a recognisable character across the interactive
Science courseware
3. The principle of flexibility of the system‟s response to the individuals‟
differences
As has been established, the principle of flexibility is necessary to ensure that
courseware is responsive to the individual differences of users, including their
preferences, age levels and skills. This principle helps to ensure that all users can
use the courseware without difficulty and can understand the content easily. For
example, using a combination of words, images and sounds helps to accommodate
the different learning styles of users in a navigation bar, while detailed navigation
and step-by-step instructions suit the novice and shortcuts should be provided for
the convenience of expert or experienced users. In addition, the Malaysian
government guidelines provide a local interpretation of this principle by requiring
94 | Interface Design
that all the design features of the interface should not only be age-appropriate, but
should also avoid any biases regarding ethnicity, culture or religion.
The analysis of the interactive Science courseware confirms that this principle has
been followed. By and large, the colours are appropriate for the age of the
intended user. And, in terms of usability, as shown in Figure 4.15, the colours
used for the explanatory text clearly contrast with the background screen. Along
with the typeface that has been chosen and the size used, this makes it easy for the
target user group to read it, and hence helps to enhance the young users‟ ability to
understand the activities and content of the courseware.
Figure 4.15: The colours used for the text provide contrast and make it easy to
read
In terms of the instructions providing flexibility for different levels of ability and
different learning styles, the interfaces often provide multiple options. For
example, in some sections, most of the images, icons, and commands are
accompanied by explanatory words or audio effects (Figure 4.16). And, on the
navigation bar, some of the buttons produce audio effects when clicked, while
others have a mouse over effect (Figure 4.17).
95 | Interface Design
Figure 4.16: The images are presented and accompanied by the explanatory
words
Figure 4.17: Mouse over effect on the navigation bar
Often the content is also provided as both textual and visual explanations to aid
differing learning styles. The choice to listen to an audio explanation of some
terms has also been provided, allowing users to click either on the audio button or
the graphic image. Therefore, sound can be turned on or off, which helps to
accommodate different user preferences (Figure 4.18).
Figure 4.18: The choice to listen to the audio or not
96 | Interface Design
This does not mean that the images in themselves cannot deliver the content and
must depend on words and audio and voice versa. Rather, images are an integral
part of the demonstration or content, while the text or sound is presented as
additional information. It has been identified in the literature that some users may
consider text elements to be more important than images in assisting
understanding. By providing both options, users who prefer text as well as those
who prefer visual explanations can understand and learn optimally. That is, the
courseware provides flexibility that accommodates visual, textual and aural
learners.
In terms of supporting both the novice and experienced or expert user, we must
consider access to content and ease of navigation. Overall, the structure of the
courseware is straightforward. Users can simply run the activity by clicking on the
play button. Alternately, the active buttons on the navigation bar also provide the
user with the flexibility to navigate to the next and previous activity. Therefore, it
is easy to navigate from one page to another in the recommended sequence. Or, as
can be seen in Figure 4.19, the main page of each lesson also provides active links
to all content units. The experienced user can therefore easily navigate to any unit
and can easily exit the activity.
Figure 4.19: Flexibility in navigation including play, repeat, go back to previous
pages and go to the next page
At the same time, assurance is provided to the novice through a confirmation
dialogue, which provides immediate feedback on any actions as the system
recognises the actions of the user. The same confirmation dialogue is used in the
97 | Interface Design
different lesson topics within the interactive courseware adding consistency. This
can be seen in the Test section shown in Figure 4.20. By providing simple visual
images or audio effects on actions that the user performs, the courseware
communicates well with the user.
Figure 4.20: The same confirmation dialogue used for same action in different
lessons
With regards to compliance with the local context and Malaysian Government
guidelines relating to flexibility, attention has been paid to design features, text
and human characters, which appear to have been designed specifically for the age
group (in this case year 3 students aged 9 years old). As can be seen in Figure
4.21, the characters, colours and text conform with the style of children‟s‟ books
and cartoons for the same age group. The requirement to avoid ethnic and cultural
biases, have been addressed by the inclusion of representatives of each major
Malaysian cultural and ethnic group. Characters identified as Asri, Siti and Cikgu
Ani have names that indicate that they represent Malays, Galang represents the
Indian ethnic group, and Mei Mei and Joseph represent the Chinese population
(Figure 4.22).
98 | Interface Design
Figure 4.21: The text, human characters and graphic images are appropriate to the
user age group
Figure 4.22: The features of the graphic images used for human characters with
concern for avoiding ethnicity or religion biases
Moreover, the features of these human characters suggest that the developers were
careful to avoid bias for those three ethnics. Furthermore, the voice selection for
the talent that was used for these characters is also appropriate for the gender, race
and age of each character. The evidence found in the analysis on this courseware
therefore suggests that the principle of flexibility and the characteristics that this
has been translated to in the Malaysian Government guidelines have largely been
followed.
4. The principle of efficient feedback given to the user
As most of the international texts note, providing immediate feedback is an
important means of reinforcement and provides encouragement to proceed. It
99 | Interface Design
should be immediate, informative and clear and easy to understand and should be
in visual or audio format or both. In essence, if the user does not receive any clear
response to what they have done, they may do it again. The Malaysian
government guidelines also highlight that users should be kept informed of any
action or error in the interactive courseware.
The analysis of the interactive Science courseware has revealed that the principle
of feedback is provided in several ways. Firstly, a response is given in the form of
visual images and/or explanatory text, which occurs immediately when clicking
on any text button the menu bar in the Tutorial page, as shown in Figure 4.23.
Figure 4.23: Example of immediate feedback when clicking on an active button
In other examples, responses are given in the form of sound/audio effects or
colour changes where by the colour of active button changes when clicking on it.
On some pages however, responses are provided in the form of visual images or
texts, without sound effects.
5. The principle of visual communication through an aesthetically pleasing
appearance of the screen
As the literature has established, aesthetics relates to the colours, forms and fonts
used, as well as the overall arrangement of the interface design. The principle of
aesthetics relates to the screen appearance of the courseware, and is not simply a
matter of making the interface “prettier” or attractive to the user. It helps to
establish a „look and feel‟, which should appeal to the demographic of the target
group and colour, in particular, can help users feel comfortable with the system
100 | Interface Design
(Nielsen, 2000). Because it provides the first impression of a product, it should
help produce a sense of familiarity and enjoyment, and it should help to capture
the users‟ attention and maintain their interest.
But visual design is also important to making the screen interface easier to
understand, and should contribute to a more effective relationship between the
user and the application. Therefore, it is closely related to the overall usability of
the product.
The analysis of the courseware has established that aesthetic considerations are
apparent through the choice of colour, style, font and overall look and feel, which
are suitable to the demographic, and will been joy able for the user, as well as
supporting them in accessing the courseware. For example, the characteristic of
the font used is clear and easy to understand by the intended user and it helps to
gain the attention of users and raises their interest in using the courseware.
4.4 A comparative analysis of the interactive courseware
with the principles recommended in the literature and the
government guidelines
After gathering and categorising the most commonly recommended principles and
characteristics in the literature, and those suggested in the Malaysian government
guidelines, and considering examples of how this is manifested in the courseware,
a content analysis process was used to establish the extent of their presence in the
sample of interactive Science courseware. The frequency of the twenty-four
characteristics described in Section 4.2.3 was evaluated screen by screen across
the twenty-six lessons in the sample courseware. The range of the characteristics
usage was then categorised into a Likert scale: from very low, low, average, high
to very high, where very low represents less than 10% occurrence; low represents
20%; medium represent 50%; high represents 80%; and very high represents 90%
as shown in Table 4.7
101 | Interface Design
Frequency
Principles Characteristics
Ver
y L
ow
Low
Med
ium
Hig
h
Ver
y H
igh
The principle of
consistency
within the
design of a
product
1. Persistent sequencing of the screen
appearance *
2. Similarities colour schemes used throughout *
3. Consistent fonts and sizes *
4. The use of similar characters *
5. The same actions yield the same results *
6. Similar positions of the main menus and navigation bars
*
7. Consistent tools in the navigation bar *
8. The same montage in the introduction and
pages *
The principle
of familiarity
with elements
and functions
from prior
experience
9. The human and animal characters used shall
be logical and not contradictory to real life
situations *
10. The human and animal characters used should
be from familiar characters. *
The principle
of flexibility of
the system’s
response to the
individual
differences
11. Provide a button to pause, continue, go back
and exit the activity *
12. Provide supporting sound/audio *
13. Use a confirmation dialogue box to support
any user action *
14. Colours must be suitable for the intended user *
15. Visual images must be suitable for the
intended user
*
16. The text characters must be easy to read *
17. Sound and voices must be appropriate to
gender and age of characters
*
18. The audio effects used with the symbols and
icons should be age-appropriate *
19. Avoid ethnic and religious biases in colours *
20. Avoid ethnic and religious biases in any
images
*
The principle
of efficient
feedback given
to the user
21. Use accurate responses in the confirmation
dialogue *
22. Provide users with visual or audio effects on
actions *
23. Allow user to operate the task properly *
The principle
of visual
communication
through an
aesthetically
pleasing
appearance of
the screen
24. Each element shall be attractive and
encouraging to the intended users
*
Table 4.7: The principles and frequency level of characteristics used in the
interactive science courseware
102 | Interface Design
Table 4.8 summarises the frequency distribution of the use of principles when the
characteristics pertaining to them are collated.
Principles Frequency of use in the
courseware
Ver
y l
ow
low
med
ium
Hig
h
Ver
y H
igh
Consistency within a product *
Familiarity with elements and functions through
experience elsewhere *
Flexibility of the system‟s response to the
individual differences *
Efficient feedback to the user *
The principle of visual communication and an
aesthetically pleasing appearance of the screen *
Table 4.8: The collated principles and their frequency in the interactive science
courseware
At the level of broad analysis, this table suggests that the guidelines outlined by
the Ministry have been applied, by and large. As shown in table 4.7, seventeen out
of the twenty-four characteristics were applied very frequently, while two were
applied to a medium degree, and only three were categorized as low frequency
and two were used at a very low rate.That is, the results of this empirical analysis
have determined that most of the principles established for effective interface
design in the literature and the characteristics recommended in the guidelines were
applied by the courseware developers at least to a reasonable degree.
More specifically, in relation to individual principles and their characteristics: five
out of eight characteristics of consistency, as described in the Malaysian
guidelines, achieve a high rate of frequency, and two are high, while only one
characteristic was used at an average rate of frequency, and none at low or very
low rates. Thus it shows that the principle of consistency is clearly evident in the
courseware sample. Indeed, colour, text, characters and icon are highly consistent
103 | Interface Design
across the courseware. As these characteristics are outlined in the Malaysian
government guidelines, this suggests that the developers of the courseware are
either well aware of this principle, or were concerned with adhering to the
requirements outlined by the Ministry (or both).
In terms of the principle of familiarity, analysis of the sample courseware
determined that the two related characteristics outlined in the Ministry guidelines
are very frequently used in the courseware. By employing concepts and characters
that Malaysian children will be familiar with, the use of the real-world metaphors
of the classroom, as well as a language and colour schemes that are similar to
those used in books and cartoons, the sample courseware also evidences that it
was developed with sensitivity to providing a sense of familiarity.
In relation to the principle of flexibility, whereby the interface is sensitive to
different users’ needs, experience, knowledge and skill, has the largest number of
characteristics in the Malaysian government guidelines (ten in all). They include
general suitability to targeted user group (primary school children), catering to
different levels of experience from the novice through to the experienced user, and
Malaysian specific flexibility across cultural and religious groups by employing a
range of characters and avoiding ethnic, cultural and religious bias in images and
colours.
The content analysis of the interactive Science courseware found that the
characteristics of flexibility scored very highly in the courseware. Different ways
are provided for users to access functions, such as visually driven icons and
navigation as well as shortcuts, and this should allow the user to access
information and undertake tasks in new ways without frustration as they become
more experienced with the courseware. In addition, while most of the
explanations for the content are provided visually, as they are illustrated through
cartoon figures, textual explanations are also provided. In addition, the specific
requirements for respecting the diversity of ethnicity, culture and religion of users
in the local context is clearly considered through the use of “Sang Kancil” and
“Labu Sayung” characters that portray Malaysian identity, but do not bias against
any cultural group and children who have a variety of ethnic names and features.
104 | Interface Design
The developers seem to have responded wholeheartedly to the guideline provided
by the Ministry to provide this unique aspect of the local products from generic
international courseware.
The principle of feedback, whereby the interface should provide a response to user
actions through confirmation dialogue, or a visual or audio to show the current
state of the program to the users is directly articulated through the characteristics
in the Malaysian government guidelines. However, analysis of the sample Science
courseware revealed that feedback is rarely provided on actions or on the errors
that occur as a result of interaction. The courseware only provides feedbacks
through visual or audio effects on some actions and, unfortunately, responses of
the confirmation dialogue are not accurate.
In term of the principle of aesthetics, the Ministry guidelines require that each
element should be attractive and encouraging. In terms of developing a
pleasurable and age appropriate “look and feel”, the analysis of the interactive
Science courseware allows the conclusion to be drawn that this principle has been
applied throughout courseware. And, by providing a meaningful contrast of colour
combinations, along with animated and static graphic images, the interface design
of the interactive Science courseware potentially provides the user with a sense of
excitement and fun that might be expected to positively influence the adoption of
the courseware in the classroom.
In addition visual communication can be understood as the principle form of
communication in the courseware, with text, and audio providing support. While
this is not clearly mentioned in the guidelines, the visual design features and
elements appear to be understandable and clear and provide a simple way of
finding out what is in the system and a clear indication of navigational
opportunities, as well as providing visual explanations of content. In both regards
it appears that the developers have been aware of the principles /or guidelines
surrounding aesthetics and have adhered to them.
105 | Interface Design
4.5 Conclusion
This chapter has described and compared the information gathered through a
contextual analysis of international literature, a content analysis of Malaysian
government guidelines and a content analysis of a sample of Science courseware
that has been developed for the Malaysian Smart School Project. It has
established that the five most commonly cited principles in the selected literature
have eighteen characteristics, and that these principles are referred to directly or
indirectly through twenty-four characteristics outlined in the Malaysian
government guidelines. While the principles and characteristic provided in these
two different sources may be described differently, they are fundamentally similar,
with the addition of a unique characteristic in the Malaysian government
guidelines concerned with avoiding biases in ethnicity, culture and religion.
Therefore, from this review of the literature and the guidelines, these five in-
common principles and twenty-four characteristics were used as a basis for the
content analysis of the interactive Science courseware. While it should be noted
that the qualitative data of this analysis is based on some level at least, on the
subjective assessment of the researcher, it is derived from the principles and
guidelines from the literature as a foundation, and the interpretation of the data,
which was based entirely on frequency of observation.
This content analysis allow a conclusion to be drawn on Research Question 1,
namely, What interface design principles, including those established in the
international literature, and those outlined in the Malaysian government guidelines
are evident in the current interactive Science courseware? The answer is that all of
the most frequently cited principles in the literature and the characteristics
recommended in the Malaysian guidelines have been applied in the sample of
courseware to a greater or lesser extent, with most evident at high rates of
frequency. The five components or design elements (namely images, text, video,
audio, and animation) suggested in the Malaysian government guidelines have
been incorporated in the sample of interactive Science courseware, and the
Malaysian specific guidelines on ethnicity have been incorporated. From this
evidence, it can be deduced that the designers of the courseware were conscious
106 | Interface Design
of the requirements outlined by the Ministry in the guidelines and applied them,
and whether they were aware of them or not, this has meant incorporating aspects
of the international interface design principles.
However, the effectiveness of interactive Science courseware and these five
common principles, twenty-four characteristics and five components must be
subject to further scrutiny. In the following chapter, the data from fieldwork
(classroom observations, focus group discussions and in-depth interviews) will
provide a comprehensive analysis of the courseware in use. This will provide a
different gauge for each of the principles and characteristics, and provide an
evaluation based on the perceptions of users in relation to the quality and usability
of the interfaces. From this, a comparison can be made between the outcome of
the analytical process of a content analysis and qualitative data derived from
users‟ actual experiences.
107 | Interface Design
5. Evaluating the courseware in use:
Fieldwork
5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the fieldwork conducted at six Malaysian primary Smart
Schools in 2010. The purpose of this fieldwork was to gauge aspects of the
science courseware in use. That is, the fieldwork was designed to investigate
Research Question 2, namely: How do the users (school principals, teachers and
students) of interactive Science courseware for the Malaysian Smart School
Project interact with the courseware and perceive it? The outcomes of this
empirical research could then be compared with the outcomes of the content
analysis of the existing interactive courseware.
As discussed in Chapter 3, the fieldwork involved processes aligned with
ethnographic methods, undertaken in school settings. The duration of the
fieldwork was approximately three months (from January to March 2010), during
which time, two weeks were spent at each of the schools that participated in the
research project. The process began with interviews with the school principals,
followed by classroom observations of the courseware in use, then focus group
discussions with students accompanied by their teachers. The fieldwork was
concluded with in-depth follow-up interviews with the science teachers who use
the courseware to clarify and expand upon queries that arose in the observations
and focus group discussions. The processes, outcomes and interpretations of the
data collected are detailed in this chapter.
5.2 The participants
As mentioned in the introduction to this thesis, there are three types of Smart
Schools in the Malaysian Smart School Project: new Smart Schools, in which
each student at the school is considered an expert user and is provided with a
laptop (and can therefore access his or her own computing devices in the
classroom); state Smart Schools, in which students are identified as a middle user
108 | Interface Design
and selected classrooms are equipped with computers, a large screen display
board and a shared printer; and remote Smart Schools, which have minimal
equipment comprised of several computers, a large display board and projector in
a computer lab that shows the teacher‟s computer desktop. Consequently, students
at a remote Smart School are deemed to be novice users, and can only use the
interactive courseware if their teacher is conducting the class in the computer lab
and projecting the content. For the purposes of this research project, two schools
were selected from each type of Smart School. To provide the requisite diversity
in the background of the participants, the selection of schools was made from an
extensive list provided by the Ministry.
In total, six primary Smart Schools from four different states across Malaysia,
were selected namely: Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Perak and Selangor. From these
schools, a total of 220 research participants were involved, including six school
principals, six teachers who use the interactive Science courseware in teaching
science and 208 students. Agreement was gained from each of these participants
in a written consent form, as outlined in the Methodology Chapter. In order to
administer the data collection process, approvals and permissions from the
Malaysian Ministry of Education, QUT‟s ethical clearance, and school principals
of each selected school were first obtained.
The breakdown of participants across schools is shown in Table 5.1.
109 | Interface Design
Physical setting (type of school) Participant activities Total no of
participants Face to
face
interviews
Classroom
observation
and Focus
group
discussion
In-depth
interviews
New Smart School 1:
Mini laptop per child, big screen in the classroom and a shared
printer in classroom
1 school principal
40 students
1 teacher
6 teachers
6 school
principals
208
students
New Smart School 2:
Mini laptop per child, big screen
in the classroom and a shared printer in classroom
1 school
principal
40
students
1 teacher
State Smart School 1:
Desktop computers in selected classrooms, shared printer in a
computer lab
1 school principal
30 students
1 teacher
State Smart School 2:
Computer in selected classroom,
shared printer in computer lab
1 school
principal
38
students
1 teacher
Remote Smart School 1:
One computer, big screen,
projector and shared printer in a computer lab
1 school
principal
28
students
1 teacher
Remote Smart School 2:
One computer, big screen,
projector and shared printer in a computer lab
1 school
principal
33
students
1 teacher
220 participants
Table 5.1: Number of participants involved in each physical research setting
5.3 Understanding patterns of use: Interviews with school
principals and science teachers
School principals were interviewed to gain information about the current level of
courseware usage at their schools and factors contributing to the extent of uptake
and frequency of use. As mentioned in the Methodology chapter, each school
principal was interviewed in the Malay national language. Each session lasted
approximately thirty to forty-five minutes and was conducted at their respective
110 | Interface Design
schools and recorded on a tape recorder. The questions asked were consistent and
are attached as Appendix 9 of this thesis.
The interview content was transcribed by the researcher and then translated by the
National Institute of Translation Malaysia. The transcripts were then analysed
using coding scheme procedures suggested by Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias
(1992), as per explained in the Methodology chapter. The detailed results are
described in the following sections, through two themes that reflect the aims of
interview. The first relates to the level of interactive courseware use in the
classroom and the second pertains to factors affecting the level of uptake and
frequency of use.
5.3.1 The uptake of interactive courseware in schools
The interviews established that all school principals involved in the study (six in
all) encourage their teaching staff to use the interactive courseware in the
classroom. Representative statements include:
I ask teachers in my school to use the courseware very often to support
their teaching process. (School Principal Interview, respondent 1)
Teachers in my school use the courseware very often to support students
learning processes. It is a requirement for them to use it. (School
Principal Interview, respondent 2)
As the principal, I really encourage teachers to use it in class. (School
Principal Interview, respondent 3)
I always asked all teachers to use the supplied courseware. (School
Principal Interview, respondent 4)
Similarly, the science teachers who participated in in-depth interviews (six in all)
acknowledged the benefit of using interactive courseware as a supplementary tool
to support the learning process. Indeed, both teachers from new Smart Schools
expressed the belief that their students become more interested and focused in
class if interactive courseware is used. They explained this by saying:
I believe that interactive tools will enhance my students’ learning
performance. (Teacher Interview, respondent 1)
111 | Interface Design
I notice my students’ performance becomes better because most of them
are more focused. (Teacher Interview, respondent 2)
Teachers from the state Smart Schools stated that the interactive courseware could
help students become more creative. As one declared:
I think that the use of interactive courseware will enhance the creativity
of my students. (Teacher Interview, respondent 4)
And a teacher from another state Smart School echoed this by claiming that:
I found the interactive courseware helps my students become more
creative. (Teacher Interview, respondent 4)
From such responses, it can be concluded that the teachers who participated in this
research project have a positive attitude towards using interactive courseware in
the classroom. However, this enthusiasm and positive attitude is not the only
factor determining the extent of use. The figures on the extent of use suggest that
other factors also come into play.
To establish the extent of use of the science courseware, the school principals
from the three different types of Smart School were asked whether the courseware
is used daily, weekly or monthly. Table 5.2 shows the results against the type of
school.
School Type Daily Weekly Monthly
New Smart School 1 *
New Smart School 2 *
State Smart School 1 **
State Smart School 2 *
Remote Smart School 1 *
Remote Smart School 2 *
Table 5.2: The frequency of interactive science courseware use in the schools
As illustrated in the table, the frequency of courseware use at both new Smart
Schools is reported as frequent, in contrast to remote Smart Schools, where both
112 | Interface Design
school principals acknowledged that their schools only use the courseware on a
monthly basis. The courseware use at state Smart School varied with one principal
reporting that their school was a moderate user and used it on a weekly basis,
while the other uses it frequently. That is, the usage rate of courseware varies
according to the type of Smart School.
5.3.2 Factors influencing the level of use
To further investigate this level of usage at the different types of schools, all the
school principals were asked about the factors that influence their teachers in
implementing the courseware at their schools. Questions were asked about
whether the school has enough computers and other support facilities to
implement the interactive courseware; whether the school has technical support
staff; whether the school‟s teachers are skilled in using interactive software, and
the general perceptions of the courseware itself. Analysis of the interview
transcripts identified a number of issues and concerns raised by the participants.
In short, five main factors appear to influence the level of use of the courseware in
schools. They include the standard of the interactive courseware; the quality of the
interface design; infrastructural limitations; technical support; and the level of
teaching experience amongst staff. This range of factors, as identified by each
school, is detailed in Table 5.3.
113 | Interface Design
School
IDENTIFIED FACTORS LIMITING UPTAKE
Quality of
the
courseware
Interface
design
Infrastructure
Limitations
Technical
Support
Teaching
experience
New
Smart
School 1
Content not
compatible
with
teaching
approach
Interface
not
welcoming
3 years
New
Smart
School 2
Lack of
pedagogical
value
Interface
not suited
Lack of
computer labs 8 years
State
Smart
School 1
Content not
compatible
with
teaching
approach
Interface
not
inviting
Limited
number
of computers
No
technician
available
6 months
State
Smart
School 2
Lack of
pedagogical
value
Interface
not suited
Limited
number
of computers
Lack of
technicians 8 years
Remote
Smart
School 1
Content not
compatible
with
teaching
approach
Interface
not suited
Lack of
computer labs
and limited
number
of computers
Lack of
technicians 5 years
Remote
Smart
School 2
Content not
compatible
with
teaching
approach
Interface
not well-
suited
Lack of
computer labs
and limited
number
of computers
No
technician
available
5 years
Table 5.3: The factors influencing the use of courseware in the schools, as
identified by the principals
A brief overview of these factors can be summarised as follows:
1. The quality of the courseware
The main factor effecting usage, which was most often cited by the school
principals, is the perceived relevance of the interactive courseware. The
respondents referred to this problem at several levels. The first issue relates to the
content of the courseware. Most school principals (four out of six) consider that
much of the content in the current interactive science courseware is not
compatible with the current national Science textbooks. As one principal from a
new Smart School said:
114 | Interface Design
Our teachers can teach students with interactive courseware at
any time, but we need a good product. How can teachers use it if
some of the content is totally different to the textbook? (School
Principal Interview, respondent 2)
Another school principal from a remote Smart School went further stating that:
There is wrong information in some sections. Even the terms used are so
different. So how can we use it in classroom? (School Principal Interview,
respondent 5)
Another two school principals (one from a new Smart School and one from a state
Smart School) claimed that the interactive science courseware lacks pedagogical
coherence compared to expectations of a sophisticated learning tool in which
every topic is covered, and is well presented, with useful and appropriate
exercises to complement the content. They claimed,
The courseware should be an advanced tool, as claimed by the Ministry.
But I have found that it is not. It really makes me upset. (School Principal
Interview, respondent 1)
I am very disappointed with what has been provided in the courseware. I
was told that this courseware will help teachers, but when we used it, I
noticed it really interferes with teaching. (School Principal Interview,
respondent 3)
From these answer, it appears that the quality and content of the current
interactive Science courseware is disappointing to the schools. Clearly, the
content of interactive courseware, as well as its presentation, will affect the extent
of use of the courseware in the classroom, regardless of different school
backgrounds.
2. Interface design quality
The second major issue raised by school principals relates to interface design
problems. Four out of six school principals commented that they are very
concerned about the quality of the interfaces and mentioned that either the look of
the interactive science courseware is not well suited to students or that is not
engaging enough. As one principal from a new Smart School stated:
Comparing the interactive courseware to the printed learning material,
the current interactive courseware is much better in terms of
115 | Interface Design
presentation. A lot of pictures and animations are presented in the
interactive courseware. But then, the current look of the interactive
courseware is not really attractive to me. I believed my students also feel
the same.... As a part of the teaching and learning material, it should be
more attractive. (School Principal Interview, respondent 1)
Another school principal from a state Smart School supported this by saying:
I strongly believe that, if the appearance of the interactive courseware
was more attractive, the learning process would be more interesting.
(School Principal Interview, respondent 4)
Besides this issue of look and feel of the interface, a principal of a new Smart
School also claimed that there have been times when the interface design creates
frustration for both teachers and students because it is not user-friendly enough.
As he argued:
As a user, students should be able to concentrate on the interactive
courseware because all the information is supposedly there. But it does
not happen in the science courseware. Some of the students are not
familiar with the terms or icons used. (School Principal Interview,
respondent 2)
Such issues around interface design quality inevitably have a relationship to the
frequency of courseware use. Of course, the more reliable, appropriate and
appealing the interface design in interactive courseware, the more often teachers
will use the courseware in the classroom.
3. Infrastructure limitations
Another major difficulty reported by school principals is related to the level of
infrastructure at their schools. A strong correlation is evident between the type of
school (and hence the number of computers and computer labs it has) and the
frequency of courseware use. The number of computers and computer labs and the
location of the computers for each school that participated in the study are
illustrated in Table 5.4., which can be compared with table 5.2, which shows
relative rate of use of the courseware.
116 | Interface Design
School No. Of
student
per class
No. of
computers
No. of
computer
labs
Location of
computers
New Smart
School 1 40 80 2
Computer
laboratories
and classroom
New Smart
School 2 45 85 2
Computer
laboratories
and classroom
State Smart
School 1 36 30 1
Computer
laboratory
and classroom
State Smart
School 2 38 35 1
Computer
laboratory
and classroom
Remote Smart
School 1 30 18 1
Computer
laboratory
Remote Smart
School 2 28 15 1
Computer
laboratory
Table 5.4: Computers and computer labs at different Smart Schools
As shown in the Table 5.4, there are clear differences between the school types in
relation to the number of computers and computer labs, which are much lower at
remote Smart Schools (ranging from 15-18 computers) compared to new Smart
Schools (ranging from 80-85 computers). This is largely due to the facility
allowances provided by the Ministry of Education, based on the different types of
school.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the problem of infrastructure was emphasised by both
school, principals from remote Smart Schools, where the ratio of computers to
students is very low. For example, one principal said that:
We can teach the students with computers and by using interactive
courseware at any time, but we need good facilities, especially with
enough computers! Currently we just have 35 computers and commonly
students in one class are 40 to 45. (School Principal Interview,
respondent 5)
And other principal commented that:
117 | Interface Design
We only have 15 computers in a computer lab…. So how can we use the
interactive courseware with limited computers and more than 30 students
in one class? (School Principal Interview, respondent 6)
The principal of one remote Smart Schools also declared that the current
computers at his school are too old and outdated. He continued:
....and the computers that we have now are outdated and some are too
old to be used by the students. … the computers are too slow as well.
(School Principal Interview, respondent 6)
Clearly then, the classification of the school and the consequential availability of
technology resources impacts on courseware use, and this plays out in uptake by
teachers. Interviews with teachers from new Smart Schools suggest that they use
the courseware once a week compared to the teachers at remote Smart Schools,
who used it once a month. As one of the respondents from a new Smart School
said:
When I teach the lessons in my class, I always use the interactive
courseware. I give my students a chance to explore the CD. They can use
it by themselves. That’s why, at least once a week, I will make sure that
each class that I teach will have a chance to use the courseware.
(Teacher Interview, respondent 2)
By contrast, a teacher from a remote Smart School, who must drive the
courseware and project it onto a screen with the students following her interaction,
gave a very different answer:
Not too often. I just use it when I think it’s a must. It depends on the topic
that I am going to teach but I prefer to use the traditional methods..
(Teacher Interview, respondent 5)
To overcome this problem of infrastructure, some school principals have taken
their own initiative. In particular, both principals from a state Smart School
reported that their school has purchased several computers from a private
company, using their own school budget and the collection of money from parents.
Through this initiative, one of the principals from a state Smart School stressed
118 | Interface Design
that their students consequently have more opportunities to use the interactive
courseware in their learning.
4. Technical support
Technical support is another reason widely regarded by school principals to be a
factor that limits the use of the interactive courseware at their schools. A shortage
of technicians at schools was cited by the majority of school principals and while
none have a specific technical support person at their school, neither do they
receive any technical support from the government. Therefore, they commonly
ask the teachers for help to maintain the computers and take care of the interactive
courseware. As one principal from a state Smart School commented:
I just get technical assistance from my teachers who are competent in the
computer field. (School Principal Interview, respondent 3)
Another principal from a state Smart School saying this:
I am not a technical person. To use the interactive courseware frequently
you need to have at least basic technical knowledge. Commonly I just ask
for assistance from my colleagues. (School Principal Interview,
respondent 4)
And a principal from new Smart School claimed that:
I have been here for 6 years. No one has come as a technical support
officer or takes responsibility for that. I just get teachers who are more
skilled on the computer to help. (School Principal Interview, respondent
2)
But where the technical expertise is not available from within the teaching staff,
the outcome is clear. As one principal of a remote Smart School commented:
So far we have tried to solve problems by ourselves. If we can’t solve
them, we stop using [the courseware]. This is the best way I think.
(School Principal Interview, respondent 6)
Through these responses, it is evident that schools will use the interactive
courseware more frequently if the computers and courseware can be administered
and supported, and if that expertise is not available, the courseware is likely to be
abandoned.
119 | Interface Design
5. Teaching Experience
The teachers‟ interviews revealed that the level of teaching experience of the
science teachers also impacts on the degree of courseware use at each school. The
experience of science teachers at the schools concerned varies, from 8 years to 6
months, as does the frequency of use; as shown in Table 5.5.
Teacher School Type Years of
experience
Frequency of courseware
usage
High Average Low
T1 New Smart School 1 3 years *
T2 New Smart School 2 8 years *
T3 State Smart School 1 6 months *
T4 State Smart School 2 8 years *
T5 Remote Smart School 1 5 years *
T6 Remote Smart School 2 5 years *
Table 5.5: Profile of experience among teachers against the level of courseware
use by them.
As shown in Table 5.5, all teachers participating in this study have teaching
experience using the courseware, to varying degrees. One participant has been
using the courseware for less than one year, three for between three and five years,
and two for eight years. However, where teachers had the same experience (e.g.
eight years of teaching experience), different rates of courseware use were
reported by the teachers at different types of schools. On the other hand, both
teachers from a remote Smart School (which have limited infrastructure) with five
years‟ teaching experience reported that they did not regularly use the courseware.
Therefore, it can be concluded that uptake and use of the courseware is more
strongly related to the type of facilities at a school than years of experience of its
teachers. However, it should be noted that experience can be a factor. One teacher
from a state Smart School indicated that she uses the courseware moderately
because she has just taught for just six months. Therefore, being quite new to
120 | Interface Design
teaching may have an impact on the level of use of the courseware, and there is
some correlation between the levels of courseware usage with the length of
teaching experience.
When given the opportunity to raise other contributing factors, the principals also
raised the teacher‟s competency level in using the interactive courseware. Three
school principals (one from remote Smart School and two from state Smart
School) expressed that teachers‟ skills and ability and confidence also influence
the rate of courseware use and interactive tools more generally. However, school
principals also indicated that teachers would like to integrate more computer
applications into their teaching and suggested that perhaps more in-service
courses or training could be carried out with the aim of training teachers in order
to make full use of technology in teaching.
5.3.3 Discussion
A number of conclusions can be drawn from the outcomes of the interviews with
school principals and teachers. Firstly, a positive attitude to using interactive
resources (in principle) is common among teachers and school principals, and this
undoubtedly affects the level of interactive courseware use at some types of
school. However, there are other factors that impact negatively upon uptake.
Primarily, the results from both sets of interviews suggest that the use of
interactive courseware at schools is highly dependent on the quality of courseware,
including its content and interface design. In fact, there appears to be a strong
correlation between the level of courseware use and the perception of the content,
activities and interface design performance. In this regard, even though teachers
acknowledge that students become more interested and focused in the classroom
when the courseware is used (due to its inclusion of rich media), it was
established that inappropriate and incorrect content and problems with the
interface design are the most obvious causes of the interactive courseware being
less often used than anticipated.
121 | Interface Design
From this, it can be concluded that teachers will use the interactive courseware
more often in the classroom if they consider it to be appropriate in terms of
content and if it has an attractive and intuitive interface design. This finding bears
out the claims made by international interaction design experts such as Preece,
Rogers and Sharp (2002), as well as Balinsky (2006), and Shields and Kukulska-
Hulme (2006), that effective interface design contributes to the level of product
use.
The second major factor influencing uptake is the characteristics of the school and
its designated type of Smart School. For instance, the current use of interactive
courseware across the three different types of Smart School differs significantly,
with new Smart Schools using the interactive courseware much more frequently
than remote Smart Schools. As these school types have different levels of
facilities, it can be said that the uptake and use of interactive courseware in
schools is strongly influenced by the extent of facilities and infrastructure within a
school, such as the number of available computers and computer labs. The extent
of infrastructure is clearly a primary factor in supporting courseware use. If the
school staff have a positive attitude but have a limited number of computers and
computer labs, the usage level of the interactive courseware inevitably suffers. For
that reason, some schools have thought it necessary to take their own initiative to
overcome the problem of low frequency of the interactive courseware use at their
schools, rather than just depending on the government subsidies.
The level of courseware usage is also impacted by the level of technical support,
and without such support the project can be abandoned. In addition, teachers who
are new to the technology may need extra support and training to start using the
interactive courseware more frequently. Thus, to achieve a successful level of
interactive courseware usage at school, an appropriate level of technical support
and in-service training needs to be considered, as well as the provision of the
necessary infrastructure or a scheme to support schools to increase the level of
courseware use.
In summary, it has been established that the level of interactive courseware use in
the classroom is highly influenced by the courseware content and activities and
122 | Interface Design
the quality of interface design, which is essential to strengthen and sustain
teachers' motivation and interest in using interactive courseware in the classroom.
However, the success of the courseware implementation at schools cannot be
achieved if sufficient technical support and infrastructure is not provided.
5.4 Observations of the courseware in classrooms
So far the effectiveness of the interface design principles, characteristics and
components in the courseware have been established through reference to the
literature and government guidelines, which have been tested against the sample
of existing courseware. These initial forms of analysis have helped to establish the
extent that these principles are present and contribute to users‟ interaction and
learning experience. Moreover, this process has helped to establish the actual
needs of the teachers and students as an end-user.
After gaining an initial understanding of the level of use of interactive courseware
at schools through the interviews discussed in the previous section, classroom
observations of the students and teachers were conducted, followed by focus
group discussions with students and interviews with the science teachers. The
purpose of these methods, which can be aligned with a small-scale ethnographic
study, was to tease out additional information about specific difficulties faced by
the users of the courseware, as well as their preferences. Three different methods
(interviews, observations and focus groups) were considered to be valuable means
to cross-check the analyses conducted so far,
Classroom observations were conducted at two of each of the three different types
of primary Smart Schools located in four different states across Malaysia, as
described in detail in Section 5.2 above. The Ministry advised that each school is
allocated 1 hour and 25 minutes per week for Science subjects and that students
have a Science class once a week. Observations were conducted over two weeks
at each school, to ensure reliability. They involved one class at each school,
consisting of between 37 and 45 students per class.
123 | Interface Design
The method used was non-participant observations, as described in the
Methodology chapter. That is, observations were conducted without disturbing
the students and teachers in their work environment or making any intervention in
the teaching and learning process. As the researcher remained unobtrusive at the
back of the class, several limitations were encountered. For example, it was
difficult to observe each of the students at the same time. To overcome this
inevitable limitation of a single researcher, all observations were videotaped using
several video cameras installed on selected computers from different angles. In
addition, photographs were taken to capture the way students and teachers use the
interactive courseware in the different settings of available Smart School learning
environments.
Three examples of different types of Smart School classroom environments
appear in figures 5.1 to 5.3, which show the students in their classrooms at a new
Smart School, a state Smart School and a remote Smart School respectively.
Figure 5.1: Students using the interactive science courseware at a new Smart
School
124 | Interface Design
Figure 5.2: Students in the class at a state Smart School
Figure 5.3: A teacher using the interactive courseware and students watching the
projection onto a big screen at a remote Smart School
Detailed notes were taken during each observation, which described the
interaction of the students with the interface design components; the length and
level of students‟ engagement with the courseware; and any distraction faced by
the students and teachers in the surroundings of the classroom. The way teachers
delivered instructions in teaching through the courseware, their level of
confidence in using the courseware, and how students respond to the learning
activities were also observed.
5.4.1 Summary of the observations
This section summarises the results of the classroom observation. In essence, the
data is presented in relation to two themes. The first refers to the overall level of
125 | Interface Design
confidence among teachers using the courseware. The second relates to the most
commonly cited interface design principles and components cited in the literature
and the students‟ and teachers‟ engagement with the courseware in relation to
them.
1. Confidence in use
In regards to the level of confidence amongst teachers in using the courseware, it
was observed that five out of six teachers participating in this research project
appeared very confident in using the interactive courseware as a teaching tool in
the classroom. Only one teacher appeared to be somewhat unsure (she was new to
the subject with only 6 months teaching experience). Confidence level did appear
to be highly influenced by the level of experience in using the courseware. In fact,
both teachers who have been teaching for 8 years (one at new Smart School and
one at state Smart School) were very confident. This might also be related to
experience of use, since both use the courseware as a daily practice. Nevertheless,
two teachers (one at a remote Smart Schools and one at a state Smart Schools)
demonstrated that they had to arrange additional activities to facilitate student
engagement with the interactive courseware because students could only simply
watch the computer via a projection screen in class.
2. Engagement with the courseware
With regards to the level of engagement of students with the courseware and its
interfaces, various students‟ reactions were recorded during the courseware use in
class, based on facial expressions, body language and other responses. This is
summarized in Table 5.6.
126 | Interface Design
Facial expressions Body posture Other Responses
Engaged Smiling
Watching
Concentration
Writing notes
Asking questions
Discussing content
amongst
themselves
Disengaged Sleepy appearance
(e.g. Eyes
drooping)
Bored expressions
Looking around
Heads on the
table
Slumped in their
chair
Playing with hair
Talking to others
about unrelated
topics
Not looking at the
screen
Staring into space
Table 5.6: Level of student‟s engagement through body language while using the
courseware
As summarised in Table 5.6, the observations found signs of disengagement, of
the students when using the courseware independently. Large numbers of students
started talking when courseware usage began. Although a few students were very
excited with the animations presented in the main sections, these students were
largely unable to work independently with the courseware in the following
sections. In particular, the observations indicated that some students didn‟t know
where to start and had difficulty moving from one screen to another. During the
observations of independent use, students frequently had sleepy and bored facial
expressions, were talking to their peers, and looking around. Indeed, it seemed
that students were much more responsive to the directions and instruction given
by the teacher than the courseware.
It was also evident that all students only appeared to respond attentively to some
of the media components such as animation, videos and graphic images and
smiled and remained engaged when these particular components were presented
in the courseware. It was also observed that these particular components were by
far the most likely to trigger responses, such as writing down notes and asking
questions and they often served as a starting point for discussions.This suggests
127 | Interface Design
that students were trying to interpret the content of the courseware through these
components.
In terms of specific levels of effectiveness of the five interface design components
(audio, video, text, animation and graphic images) in engaging students with the
interactive courseware, this was measured through a Likert-scale range from low
to high, in which the most effective component is rated in the high numerical
range, while the least effective is rated in the low range. The summary shown in
Table 5.7 below notes the frequency of students engaged pleasurably with each
component across all types of Smart School.
Classroom
Media component type and engagement
Audio Video Text Animation Graphic
Lo
w
Mid
Hig
h
Lo
w
Mid
Hig
h
Lo
w
Mid
Hig
h
Lo
w
Mid
Hig
h
Lo
w
Mid
Hig
h
New Smart
School 1:
Classroom 1 * * * * *
New Smart
School 2:
Classroom 2 * * * * *
State Smart
School 1:
Classroom 3 * * * * *
State Smart
School 2: Classroom 4
* * * * *
Remote
Smart
School 1: Classroom 5
* * * * *
Remote
Smart
School 2:
Classroom 6
* * * * *
Table 5.7: Student engagement with various media component types
In six different observation settings, only two media component types, namely
animation and video, received consistent positive responses from students and,
while they demonstrated a moderately positive response to graphic images, text
and audio components received consistently low responses from the participants.
128 | Interface Design
The observation data showed that most of the students from all types of Smart
School tended to be more focused on the courseware when animation or video
was running. This was particularly evident when students worked with the
animation and video in the Tutorial pages of the courseware when they were
smiling and interacting cheerfully. However, it should be noted that the
effectiveness of these two components in promoting student interaction and
engagement in the learning experience was influenced by the quality of video and
animation.
In the literature, it is stated that images can increase the motivation of end-users to
participate in the formation of concepts. Furthermore, when still graphic images
are combined with other components, they help users understand the content of
courseware. However, in terms of engagement with graphic images, as shown in
Table 5.7, it is important to note that they received a moderate response from the
overall students. In particular, most of the students at remote Smart Schools had
bored expressions and some looked around rather than focusing on the interactive
courseware when graphical images were on the large projector screen. However,
although the overall students‟ responses were neutral, by contrast students from
new and state Smart School seemed to somewhat enjoy the graphic images,
especially those used for familiar human and animal characters. Thus, again it
seems that students who can simply watch the courseware and cannot not interact
with it themselves due to the school type and facilities, appeared less engaged.
The text components were the most ineffective tools in terms of engaging
students‟ attention. This was particularly evident in relation to the body text in the
Introduction page and Tutorial page sections. However, students had a more
positive response when the composition and organisation of the body text was
more eye-catching. The text pages were the most problematic for students at state
and remote Smart School where limited facilities mean that students cannot go at
their own pace, or drive the navigation themselves, but simply watch it on the big
screen as the teacher interacts with it. Students at these schools appeared quite
unmotivated to read small text or large quantities of text and tended to chat with
their peers instead of reading it.
129 | Interface Design
The content analysis of the interactive science courseware (described in Chapter
4) found that sound is a minor component within it and that, other than during
animation and video, it is usually simply used in the form of a key clicking sound
(for emphasis and for feedback on navigation). In some lessons, no voice
instruction or text is provided, so the teacher‟s full assistance is needed to provide
a script and instructions. Where sound is included, teachers had to actively
encourage students to play and listen to the audio through the “click to listen the
sound” prompts. Therefore, most students tended to be neutral about the sounds
accompanying graphic images and they tended to respond little to the feedback
sounds when interacting with the software. However students at both remote
Smart Schools, who may not have heard the responsive clicks to the teacher‟s
interactions, were not sure whether the page had been visited before by looking at
the changed colours of the link text alone. This suggests that feedbacks sounds
may be taken for granted, but are nonetheless important for orientation within
activities.
5.4.2 Discussion
In summary, different user responses were observed according to the different
school facilities and the way in which the courseware is used in the classroom.
Where students were able to directly interact with the courseware, their responses
indicated that their engagement in some components was higher than those who
could simply watch it being used. These different responses will be further
clarified in the section reporting on focus group discussions with the students.
However, from the observations alone, it can be concluded that the classroom
environment appears to be an important factor that influences student engagement
with the courseware. Supporting these varying modes of use should therefore be
considered in future design and development of the courseware.
However, it can also be stated at this stage that not all the interface design
components used in the existing interactive courseware engaged students in
learning, promoted student interaction, and motivated them to use the courseware
to the same degree, and that while the animation and video attracted attention to a
high degree, the designers of the courseware were not entirely successful in
130 | Interface Design
providing effective interface design in relation to the use of text, images and audio
components. Students therefore tended to deduce the key learning objectives
primarily from the animation and video components and the teachers.
5.5 Focus group discussions with students and teachers
After the observations were completed and analysed, focus group discussions
were conducted with students, accompanied by their teachers. The purpose was to
investigate what had been observed at a deeper level and to determine the
students‟ preferences and perceptions of the interface design components. Six
focus group discussions were carried out at six different schools. Overall, thirty-
six students participated in these group discussions (consisting of six participants
from each class/school). Students who had been involved in the observations, and
who also volunteered, were selected by their teachers for the focus groups. The
first focus group was conducted on 21 January 2010 for 35 minutes, and the last
focus group took place on 29 March 2010 for 41 minutes.
A standard focus group discussion protocol was used. Before commencing the
discussion, the researcher provided background information about the researcher‟s
background, purpose of the study, and the duration of the discussion. While the
six focus groups were conducted at six different times, the questions for all groups
were the same, for consistency. The focus group discussions were recorded with
permission from the participants. To limit shyness and anxiety, the teacher was
present at all times. Once the students relaxed, questions were posed about their
background, then questions (see Appendix 11 for full list of questions) were posed
as open-ended questions, with supplementary questions to seek clarification or
more detail when necessary.
The tape-recorded discussions were then transcribed by the researcher and
analysed using thematic content analysis, drawing upon common themes
generated by the discussion. These themes, which were based on any difficulties
faced by the students in using the interactive Science courseware, and their
perceptions of each of the interface components, are described in the following
two sections.
131 | Interface Design
5.5.1 Students’ perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the
interactive courseware
In the student focus group discussions, it was important to first assess the
respondents‟ basic attitudes towards experiences of the interactive courseware.
Focus group discussions therefore began with the participants being asked
whether they use the interactive science courseware. In response, almost student
(20 out of 30 students) indicated that they had experience of learning through
interactive courseware. They were also asked whether or not they encounter any
problems with it. Out of 30 students across all types of Smart Schools,
4commented that they don‟t encounter any problems. They were asked to expand
and some broadly replied that this new learning tool is easy to use. As one
participant answered:
I don’t have any problem with the courseware. To me it is really good
and I enjoy using it. (Group Discussion 1, respondent 4)
Several students commented that they prefer it to other learning approaches, for
example a typical representative reply from this perspective was:
I am happy using this courseware. It is a fun tool and easier than reading
a textbook. (Group Discussion 2, respondent 10)
Against this positive feedback however, there were other students (18 out of 30
students) who stated that they are not really interested in using the courseware.
(This distribution was not even; with students from state Smart School in
particular claiming that they encountered difficulties). Further investigative
questions were asked to ascertain the reasons. Several students suggested that the
courseware is not easy to use, for different reasons. One claimed that is was not
easy to use until you became very familiar with it, stating that,
If you use it frequently, it is not so difficult … sometimes very interesting!
…my teacher tells me that if I repeatedly use the courseware …then
maybe I will feel at ease. (Group Discussion 4, respondent 20)
Another answer highlights difficulties with the language used in the courseware:
I found the courseware difficult to use because it is in English. (Group
Discussion 2, respondent 9)
Other answers related to technical problems. For example,
132 | Interface Design
It does not motivate me to use it because every time I try to open it, it
takes a very long time. (Group Discussion 4, respondent 17)
Along with these broad issues, including the language used, technical problems
and familiarity with the courseware, other issues contributed to the difficulties
with the courseware among students. Two main problems were identified in
relation to the current interface design. They are navigation and colour problems.
To further clarify these issues raised by the students, the teachers were asked
about them in follow up interviews and explained them as follows:
1. Navigation
Navigation is a critical aspect of interface design and users must be able to
navigate with ease through the courseware with activities structured in a way that
is conducive to helping them accomplish their goals. However, from observations
of the students who were working independently on the courseware in classroom,
it started to become clear that the navigation in the sample interactive courseware
presented difficulties to the students. Therefore this became a topic for discussion
in the focus groups. Most of the students participating in the focus group
discussions criticised the navigation system and commented that it was the most
frustrating aspect of the interface to them.
With regards to identifying specific problems, most of the participants (18 out of
30 students) claimed that buttons on the navigational menu bar are the most
problematic in terms of usability, because they are not intuitive and do not
function properly, making it difficult to navigate forward, backward or home
easily. Students commented that they also were not sure what would happen if
they clicked on buttons and that it was hard to tell if the buttons are highlighted or
not after use. There were numerous comments from participants on this, for
example:
I can’t really find exactly where the back button is and sometimes the
buttons are not even working properly. (Group Discussion 2, respondent
8)
It does not provide clear links to help me to go back and forth whenever I
want. (Group Discussion 2, respondent 10)
133 | Interface Design
It is hard to use the menu bar for the first time. (Group Discussion 3,
respondent 15)
The navigation gives me trouble going back and forward and even
exploring what’s inside. (Group Discussion 4, 22),
Similarly, several teachers commented on this issue in follow up interviews. For
example:
Initially, most of my students had difficulty finding the play and exit
button. But then, they will use these buttons after I have shown them.
(Teacher Interview, respondent 3)
Not only my students, but even I had problems with the back and forward
buttons. Not all active buttons on the navigation menu bar are
functioning well. (Teacher Interview, respondent 5)
The back buttons are the wrong way around: when you click up it goes
forward. Sometimes when I click on a home button, it does not work.
Apart from that I think it’s brilliant!!! (Teacher Interview, respondent 2)
A problem occurs when I want to play the video in the courseware. I
want to play the video that explains the topic, and then when I want to
pause the video, I cannot pause the video. Instead, I have to stop it.... a
technical problem I guess. (Teacher Interview, respondent 1)
Besides these issues, respondents pinpointed other difficulties with the navigation
bar. Indeed, most of students (20 out of 30 students) commented that the graphic
images used for icons are not comprehensible without consulting the mouse-over
explanatory text. Comments relating to this include:
The images used for the icon really make me confused. (Group
Discussion 1, respondent 4)
I couldn’t find it until my teacher showed it. If I knew earlier, I believe it
would’ve made it a little bit easier to use the courseware. (Group
Discussion 2, respondent 7)
It is difficult to understand icons that only use images. (Group Discussion
6, respondent 28)
I was not able to recognize functions because the icons are simple
images. (Group Discussion 4, respondent 16)
134 | Interface Design
Another, technical issue relates to the icons. Several students commented on this.
The following is a typical statement from them:
I can’t tell whether the button icon is functioning or not since its colour
does not change when the mouse passes over it. (Group Discussion 5,
respondent 21)
This frustration was also expressed by three out of six teachers, who verified that
many of their students were confused by the active buttons on the navigation
menu bar in different ways:
Most of my students are confused by the images used for the active
buttons. (Teacher Interview, respondent 2)
I noticed the active buttons on the navigation often make my students
confused. Sometimes, they don’t even know whether there are changes or
not. (Teacher Interview, respondent 5)
Confusion with the active button discourages my students. (Teacher
Interview, respondent 6)
From these responses by the students and teachers, it can be concluded that the
navigational menu bar in the interactive science courseware creates several
problems for students‟ interaction, in terms of technical issues, confusion about
the meaning of the icons used and procedural issues to do with change states. It
would be helpful for such usability issues to be addressed in future courseware.
2. Colour problems
Students in the focus group discussions also commented that the use of different
colours for the same icon in different contexts confused their interaction with the
courseware. For example,
It was difficult to determine because different colours are used for the
same thing. (Group Discussion 2, respondent9)
Another student elaborated,
Sometimes it was blue, but in some pages it was orange. (Group
Discussion 1, respondent 2)
While this issue is related to the principle of consistency, other students discussed
the use of colour in terms of aesthetics. Comments were made such as:
135 | Interface Design
It would be better if it was more colourful, not only dominated by brown.
(Group Discussion 2, respondent 8)
I lost interest in this courseware….the colour used for each lesson is not
attractive to me. (Group Discussion 3, respondent 13)
The colour was not appealing at all…it makes us frustrated. (Group
Discussion 4, respondent 18)
As discussed in Chapter 2, according to the literature, the use of colours impacts
on the users‟ perception and experience of an application. For example, soft
colours make the users feel more comfortable (Nielsen, 1990) and bright or
primary colours appeal to children. The Malaysian government guidelines also
recommend an appropriate colour pallet should be used for the target group. Since
students themselves clearly suggest that some of the colours were not really
appropriate to them, or not visually appealing, perhaps more consideration should
be given by the designers to this element, particularly in relation to the age of the
students, and their perceptions of colours.
5.5.2 The perceived value of the multimedia components
Researchers in the area of Human-Computer Interaction argue that combining
multi-media components such as graphic images, animation, video, text and audio
helps to support students‟ engagement (see for example Mayer, 2001). However,
as discussed in the previous section, the different components have different
effects on student interaction, and do not offer the same degree of enjoyment and
encouragement to interact with the courseware. In the following section, the
insight of the focus group discussions relating to each component is discussed in
turn.
1. Graphic Images
Focus group discussions established that the students are attracted to the
interactive courseware by the large quantity of visual images, which makes their
learning more interesting in comparison to other learning tools. As one student
said:
136 | Interface Design
When I was in year 1 and year 2, I regularly used the courseware to
explore certain lessons. I really enjoyed it because there are a lot of
pictures. (Group Discussion 2, respondent 10)
Other participants shared this view, for example:
I like all the pictures and they are very helpful to understanding the
content. (Group Discussion 3, respondent 13)
The students were therefore asked how they make meaning when seeing these
components, and why. From the responses received, it became clear that these
students believed that graphic images provide insights into the content. For
example,
Images help me to have a better understand the type of lesson. (Group
Discussion 3, respondent 11)
Students also commented that the background images used in the courseware
support the content since they provide contrasting colours to the text, and help
them to differentiate the foreground from the background.
In addition, many said that well-known graphic images used for the human
characters helped to motivate them to access the content because they felt familiar
to them and that made it more enjoyable. As one student claimed:
I did really enjoy the use of Sang Kancil! I know Sang Kancil already.
(Group Discussion 1, respondent 3)
Together, this feedback suggests that the use of graphic images in the courseware
increases students‟ engagement with content, supports their access to the content
and provides a sense of familiarity.
However, the students also suggested that the visual or graphic images used in
icons do not describe the concepts that they stand for well. As the students said:
I can’t understand the meanings of the icons by looking at their simple
images. (Group Discussion 3, respondent 14)
It is not easy to recognize the meaning of icons through images only.
(Group Discussion 2, respondent 7)
The students commented that they often needed to mouse over icons where
possible to see a textual explanation.
137 | Interface Design
2. Animations
Most of the students (23 out of 30 students) agreed that the animations used in the
interactive science courseware attract their attention to a high degree, and the
majority of them suggested that more animations should be included in future
courseware. Of particular note, the students say that they are attracted to the
courseware through the animations and commented that they motivate them to
engage with the courseware more. This enthusiasm is reflected in comments such
as:
I like animation of plants…amazing! (Group Discussion 1, respondent 3)
I like the snail animations. I can focus more. (Group Discussion 5,
respondent 21)
Moreover, responses by the students suggest that the animations assist them in
understanding the content of the subject. For example:
The animation at the beginning of the lesson does give me clearer
information and helps in understanding the content. (Group Discussion 1,
respondent 5)
The animation is really good. It gives me more information about what
we are going to learn. (Group Discussion 3, respondent 13)
The animation helps me to understand more about the topic. (Group
Discussion 1, respondent 2)
Teachers also commented that they believe that the animations enhance the
learning process. As one teacher commented:
I think the animation is very attractive. … It really enhances the teaching
and learning process. For example, the introduction of a science concept
can be explained easily with the animation assistance from the
courseware. (Teacher Interview, respondent 3)
And they agreed that it makes students more focused. As another teacher
commented:
Students are not only more interested but actually comfortable. In fact,
when the animations are fun, students enjoy playing with the courseware,
especially if the animation has the look of a real lab workbook … using
lots of detail, such as presenting the specific physical subject matter and
138 | Interface Design
animal features or the real science lab. (Teacher Interview, respondent
1)
Some teachers explained in detail how the animations are a particularly useful
way to focus students‟ attention and provide insights into the content in new and
valuable ways:
Really, really helpful! To me the courseware provided is very colourful
with animations and all. It captures the students’ attention and helps
them to understand the concept much more easily. For example, the topic
of magnets illustrates clearly how one pole attracts or does not attract.
Students can imagine it better than by explaining this on the board with
chalks. It is too abstract. (Teacher Interview, respondent 2)
According to both students and teachers then, animations in the courseware not
only make it more engaging and motivate students to use it for longer, they also
help students to understand the content better and learn more quickly. Although
the quality of the animation was not considered to be sophisticated, in general it
seems relevant because it provides demonstrations that relate to the science
content and concepts that are being taught.
3. Videos
In the focus group discussions, students indicated emphatically that, like the
animations, the videos in the interactive science courseware are engaging and that
the courseware would benefit from more of them. For example:
When my teacher runs the videos in the courseware, I really enjoy it!
(Group Discussion 6, respondent 24)
I especially like it when the video is operated in the courseware. They
should put more videos in. (Group Discussion 6, respondent 28)
Other comments also suggest that the videos help students to access content and
gain a deeper understanding of the topics being learned than other forms of
content presentation. The effectiveness of the videos in this regard was evident
through students‟ responses such as:
The lessons that contain video are easier to understand because if we
read a text consisting of words, we need to read the whole text to
139 | Interface Design
understand the content, but not so through video. (Student, Group
Discussion 3, respondent 11)
I am so excited when the video is run. I especially like the video of the
butterfly. I can easily understand the life cycle of the butterfly when it is
shown through video. (Group Discussion 3, respondent 15)
From the teachers‟ point of view, the video is also one of the most accessible
components. As one teacher elaborated:
I had been teaching for more than 7 years and I constantly use this
interactive courseware in my class. What I have noticed is that when
video in the courseware is used to explain some content, students become
more focused. It’s much easier! (Teacher Interview, respondent 4)
Another teacher supported this by saying:
In my class I always find that my students become more focused when the
video is presented. I think they like [the lesson] more. Indeed, I think it is
essential. (Teacher Interview, respondent 5)
However, some teachers raised technical issues with the video components:
Videos take a long time to load. (Teacher Interview, respondent 2)
Sometimes the videos cannot run smoothly. (Teacher Interview,
respondent 1)
These issues may relate to the age and quality of the hardware, rather than the
software, but do point to a contextual issue of use. That is, if the courseware is
used in contexts with limited infrastructure funding and support, it may not run
effectively and so cannot include extensive rich media properly.
In summary, it has been established that the students find the video components
enjoyable as they enliven the courseware, while learning through video content
makes concepts more accessible and easily understandable. These attributes were
confirmed by teachers. Therefore, it can be concluded that the video elements of
the courseware facilitate student engagement and support their learning
experiences.
140 | Interface Design
4. Text
It has been established in the literature that information presented in text is often
better when supplemented with visual images (Hooper & Hannafin, 1988). The
Malaysian government guidelines also suggest that text should be accompanied by
visual images to gain students‟ attention and help clarify the content. Perhaps
unsurprisingly then, during the observations, negative reactions were noted when
students were required to read large quantities of body text in the courseware. The
problem was particularly noticeable for the students from remote Smart Schools
who do not have direct contact with the courseware but read it from a distance
while it is projected onto a large screen at the front of the class.
To ascertain more detail on this issue, students from remote Smart Schools
participating in the focus groups were asked for clarification. Their main criticism
was to do with the context of use of the courseware in their classrooms. For
example:
I can’t read it at all from a distance. The font is too small. (Group
Discussion 5, respondent 21)
I sit at the back of class. I can’t read the text that is very small. (Group
Discussion 6, respondent 28)
Throughout the discussions, students constantly indicated that the size of the body
text is too small, causing readability issues for them.
In addition, most of the students from all type of Smart School found that the text
component is not particularly helpful in explaining content when used alone, and
that it does not engage them in an interesting way. As three students commented:
It is not helpful because it is boring. (Group Discussion 1, respondent 1)
I was not able to understand the content because a lot of text makes me
bored. (Group Discussion 4, respondent 16)
There’s so much text to bore me! (Group Discussion 5, respondent 25)
However, a few students (10 out of 30 students) commented that the text becomes
more effective when visual or graphic images are incorporated into the
composition of the body text. Several students indicated that the incorporation of
images not only helped them to become more interest and keep their attention on
141 | Interface Design
the courseware, but also assisted them to understand concepts by making them
less abstract. Indeed, several students stated that they understand what is
described in the body text clearly if visual images are provided. As four students
stated:
I can understand what is explained in the text better if it is presented with
some images. (Group Discussion 4, respondent 17)
I can identify images more than words. (Group Discussion 5, respondent
22)
The words cannot explain everything. If the words have an image, I can
understand better. (Group Discussion 4, respondent 18)
Images may explain better than words because you often do not need to
read what is written [when there are images]. (Group Discussion 4,
respondent 18)
Based on such responses, it can be concluded that the use of text can be made
more effective through design considerations such as font size, and the inclusion
of supporting elements such as visual images to support understanding.
5.6 Triangulation of the findings and discussion
The learning process requires engagement of students with the subject matter, and
it is through this engagement that learning occurs. In the case of interactive
courseware, this engagement of users with the learning materials depends on
effective facilitation by the interaction and interface design of the courseware,
which provides access to, and engagement with, the content. As Bates (2005) has
argued, high quality software that has been designed specifically for educational
purposes tends to be embraced by students and educators. However, while it has
the potential to enhance learning outcomes and provide users with a great deal of
convenience, accessibility is important to make the tools effective; accurate and
abundant content is crucial; and appropriate design that ensures suitability for the
teaching context is necessary. Moreover, students‟ and teachers‟ expectations and
concerns must be taken into consideration to ensure the uptake of the courseware
in schools.
142 | Interface Design
In this research project, these aspects of courseware design have been scrutinised
in relation to the courseware developed for primary science subjects in the
Malaysian Smart School project from multiple perspectives. Firstly, to provide the
basis for evaluation, five key interface design principles were identified from a
contextual document analysis of the key literature, and twenty-four characteristics
of these principles were extracted from the Malaysian Government guidelines for
developers, as well as the guidelines relating to five media types (components). A
content analysis of the existing courseware was then conducted to ascertain
whether the courseware that has been produced for the Smart School project
conforms to these recommendations. This chapter has then gone on to present the
findings of fieldwork, which has been conducted to establish empirical evidence
(from quantitative and qualitative data collected through observations, focus
groups and follow up interviews) on the effectiveness of the courseware.
Attention has been paid to factors that contribute to student engagement with the
courseware and the learning content; the most effective and engaging multi-media
components; and any problems experienced by the students and teachers, in
relation to the principles, characteristics and components established in previous
chapters.
Triangulating the outcomes of the classroom observations, focus group
discussions and in-depth interviews, makes it possible to draw overall conclusions
about users‟ experiences of the courseware, and their perceptions of its strengths
and weaknesses. That is, it is possible to provide some answers to research
question 2, namely: How do the users (school principals, teachers and students) of
the interactive science courseware in the Malaysian Smart School Project interact
with the courseware and perceive it? This research question relates to the over-
arching question of this study which is: How does the interface design in the
interactive science courseware of the Malaysian Smart School Project
accommodate user needs, facilitate user interaction, and support the overall
learning experience and how it might be improved?
In short, the responses gathered from fieldwork showed that some of the
participants enjoyed the courseware in general but encountered several barriers in
the interface design performance. In fact, students observed in the classroom
143 | Interface Design
using the courseware showed some frustration with aspects of the interface
design. Similarly, answers given by the students in the focus groups also
identified that not all principles, characteristic and components of the courseware
lead to usability and engagement with the content. It is important to note however
that the effectiveness of the courseware has to be understood within the context of
the Malaysian education system. For example, the lack of facilities and
infrastructure within a school, such as limited number of available computers and
computer labs in each school, as well as aging and slow hardware in some
instances could be a primary factor affecting students‟ experiences.
5.6.1 The existence of principles and characteristics
From the contextual analysis of the international literature and the Malaysian
government guidelines, five commonly cited principles for creating effective
interfaces were named (by keywords) as: Consistency, Familiarity, Flexibility,
Efficient feedback and Aesthetics. The content analysis of the courseware
concluded that these principles have been largely applied in the design of the
interactive Science courseware. However, it is also important to consider how the
end-users encounter and perceive the presence of these principles in use.
Having conducted three methods of analysis, drawn from ethnographic
approaches to the study of phenomenon in context, namely classroom
observations, focus group discussions and in-depth interviews, it is now possible
to triangulate the outcomes and conclusions against these principles. Table 5.8
collates this multi-perspectival information.
144 | Interface Design
Principles Characteristics from the guidelines
Cla
ssro
om
Ob
serva
tio
n
Fo
cu
s G
ro
up
In-d
ep
th
Inte
rv
iew
Summary responses
of stakeholders
The principle of
consistency within the
design of a product
Clear sequencing of the screen appearance Yes Yes
Similarities of colours used across screens Students confused with inconsistency of colours for the same icons.
Limited text styles Yes Yes Yes
Use of similar characters throughout Yes Yes Yes
The same actions should yield the same result
Consistent positioning of main menus Yes Yes Yes
Standard tools on navigation bars Not standardised, so students cannot navigate well.
The same montage used for the introduction to be used
in all pages Yes Yes Yes
The principle of
familiarity with
elements and
functions from prior
experience
Human and animal characters shall be logical and not
contradictory to real life situations
Yes Yes Yes Students are familiar with the human characters used from other Malay
stories.
The human and animal characters used should be
familiar characters.
Yes Yes Yes Familiarity is also derived from characters in other Malay stories.
The principle of
flexibility of the
system’s response to
the individual
differences
Provide the user with buttons to pause, continue, go
back or exit the activity
Students + teachers frustrated by lack of clarity. Some buttons do not
function well.
Provide the user with appropriate working sounds Some sound is not working properly. Students need to be prompted by
teachers to trigger the sound.
Provide confirmation dialogues to prompt user actions Feedback message are not varied and are not motivating.
Avoid biases of ethnicity and religion in any images Yes Yes Yes
Avoided biases of ethnicity and religion in colour used Yes Yes Yes
Visual images must be suitable for the age of the user Yes, but students are more interested in video than images.
Colours must be suitable to the age of the user Yes
The audio used for human characters must be
appropriate to gender and age of the character
Yes Yes Yes
The audio effects used as alternatives to symbols or
icons must be age-appropriate
Yes Some sound is not working properly.
The text characters must be easy to read Yes Yes Yes The small body text is hard to read, and too dense.
Table 5.8: Summary of the evaluation of principles and characteristics through classroom observations, focus group discussions and in-depth
interviews
145 | Interface Design
Principles Characteristics
Cla
ssro
om
Ob
serva
tio
n
Fo
cu
s g
ro
up
In-d
ep
th
Inte
rv
iew
Responses
given
by respondents
The principle
of efficient
feedback
given to the
user
Provide accurate responses in the confirmation dialogue No feedback given for some actions.
Provide users with visual or audio effects on actions that
the user performs
Not present for some actions and not always functioning.
Allow user to operate the task properly * * *
The principle
of visual
communicatio
n through an
aesthetically
pleasing
appearance of
the screen
Each element used shall be attractive to the intended users
and encouraging
* *
Teachers and students like the overall screen appearance.
Table 5.8: Continued
146 | Interface Design
Against the principles of consistency, flexibility, familiarity, efficient feedback and
aesthetics, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The principle of consistency within the design of a product
As established in the literature and contextual review, the principle of consistency, which
involves a persistent style throughout the product and the use of standard elements, is
particularly effective in facilitating user interaction and limiting confusion among users.
Nielsen (1990), for example, suggests that users will be more confident and willing to learn
if the same action produces the same effect consistently. The Malaysian government
guidelines for courseware developers also emphasise this principle.
The triangulation of the data gathered in this study allows us to establish that consistency is
not comprehensive. Classroom observations established that students experienced moderate
ease of use in relation to concepts and characters as well as design elements were applied
(such as colour, font and layout), and consistency could be assumed to be a necessary factor
in this. However, teachers and students participating in this study reported that they are
often frustrated, particularly with the navigation bar, because of inconsistencies in the icons
and colours. Therefore, it is recommended that the principle of consistency should be
applied more rigorously by the courseware developers in order to create an effective
interface design for future interactive Science for the Malaysian Smart School Project.
2. The principle of flexibility of the system‟s response to the individual differences
As established in the literature review, the principle of flexibility is necessary to ensure that
courseware is responsive to the individual preferences of users and differences in age levels
and skills, so that all targeted users can interact with the courseware without difficulty and
can understand the content easily. The Malaysian government guidelines provide a local
interpretation of this principle by requiring that all the design features of the interface should
not only be age-appropriate but should also avoid any biases regarding ethnicity, culture or
religion.
The analysis of the courseware suggested that this principle has been closely followed. By
and large, the colours appeared to be appropriate for the age of the intended user and, in
terms of usability, the colours used for the explanation texts contrasts well with the
background images on the screen. However, focus groups and in-depth follow-up interviews
147 | Interface Design
revealed that students do not find the predominant use of colours appealing to their age
group, and observations (as well as focus group discussions) uncovered that students are
frustrated by small text, which suggest that this is not age-appropriate. This was particularly
evident in the remote Smart Schools where the context of use requires students to read from
a distance as the content is projected onto a single screen. On the other hand, none of the
participants expressed concerns about biases of ethnicity and religion or any images or
colours used, so this could be a confirmation that those issues are accommodated well.
Therefore it can be concluded that some attention might be given to the target audience‟s
colour preferences. On the other hand, the local conditions in terms of culture and religion
are accommodated well. What is not taken into account however, is the variation in local
conditions of use. The courseware appears to have been designed with assumptions about
how it will be used (with each child interacting via a single computer). However this is not
always the case and in Remote Smart Schools the students can only see the projections
while the teacher interacts with the courseware. Therefore, attention needs to given in the
Malaysian Government guidelines to these contextual variations and the differing
experiences that arise from it. Recommendations need to be put in place to accommodate
these varied experiences in terms of usability (e.g. font size) and engagement (e.g. more
videos and less text).
3. The principle of familiarity with elements and functions from prior experience
It is well established that familiar characteristics should be employed in interface design,
through the employment of standard layouts, approaches to icon design and concepts as well
as well-established terminology and processes. As Mayhew (1992) explains, familiarity with
the product through reference to prior experiences allows users to immediately feel
comfortable with how a product operates, and how it fits into their lives. This means that
employing familiar computer-based concepts and using real-world metaphors are very
helpful. The Malaysian government guidelines reflect this principle by emphasising that
students should be provided with familiar concepts, and that screen appearance should align
with prior knowledge of the students.
The content analysis of the interactive Science courseware identified that some of the
characters used in the courseware were based on familiar story characters. In the classroom
observations, the effectiveness of this strategy was confirmed as most of the students
148 | Interface Design
seemed to recognise the animal characters from storybooks and welcomed that. Students in
the focus group also acknowledged that the navigation bars and their placement is similar to
other products that they have used before. Thus, it is likely that the students apply this prior
understanding in their learning activities with the courseware. Therefore the use of this
principle should be maintained in the future development of interactive science courseware
in Malaysia.
4. The principle of efficient feedback given to the user
Confirmation feedback is important for any actions performed within an interactive system.
As Nielsen (1990) claims, user interaction without feedback is unproductive. Norman
(1998) has established that feedback may simply be a response that confirms that the action
has occurred or, at another level, may confirm whether a user‟s answer is correct or
incorrect. However, as he goes on to explain, a more helpful form of feedback involves a
more sophisticated explanation that gives learners relevant information on how to adapt and
correct their performance.
The content analysis established that feedback functions are present in the interactive
Science courseware. And students by and large commented on clear and immediate
feedback after they perform an action. For example, two students commented that:
I got the answer immediately! (Group Discussion 3, respondent 12)
I got a response on what I did straightaway from the courseware. (Group
Discussion 6, respondent 28)
This feedback function was found to be effective by most students in that it allowed the
students to check their actions and answers. However, student observations revealed
frustration with some buttons that are not functioning well, and some sound feedback that is
not working properly. And, in the focus groups, some students also noted that they hope that
future courseware will provide them with more in-depth or detailed feedback with varied
messages that are motivating in new ways. As one student commented:
The feedback given is always the same, such as congratulation!, well-done! Can it
appear in other words? (Group Discussion 3, respondent 11
Some teachers noted that students sometimes look confused by the responses given and that
the style of the feedback did not provide a variety of motivational messages, which would
be beneficial.
149 | Interface Design
It can therefore be established that students may need more guidance on how to correct their
answers or be given hints on how to try again which, unfortunately, is not currently
provided in the courseware. The principle of effective feedback could therefore benefit from
more consideration in the development of future Smart School interactive courseware.
5. The principle of visual communication through an aesthetically pleasing appearance of
the screen
The literature has established that aesthetics in interface design relates to a balanced and
elegant overall arrangement of the composition of the interface, as well as the use of
appropriate colours, forms and fonts used, which creates an identity of the product that is
attractive to the target audience. This helps users by producing familiarity and enjoyment, so
capturing users‟ attention and helping maintain their interest. The Malaysian government
guidelines also recommend an appropriate colour pallet that appeals to the target group,
namely school children.
In the observations, it was noted that students were engaged with and motivated to use the
courseware for only a short time, and when the reasons for this were followed up in focus
groups some of the students suggested that the colours were not really appropriate for them,
and that the felt that they were boring.
In terms of communication through visual images, it was noted in the observations and
confirmed in the focus groups discussions that the motion graphics in the animations were
both engaging and effective in the communication of content and concepts. This also
applied to still images that are used to explain concepts and establish metaphors (of
classrooms, gardens, labs etc). However the students‟ confusion in navigation and
implementation of tasks that was apparent in the focus groups was explained in the focus
groups in terms of the use of images in icons, which are at times unclear and need textual
explanations to be understood.
Therefore, issues of targeted aesthetics need to be emphasised by the Malaysian government,
especially in term of providing colour that is appropriate to the age of the students, and their
perceptions of colours. In addition, while the use of graphical images in stills and motion
graphics should be applauded, the design of icons needs attention and specific guidelines
may assist in this aspect of the courseware. In summary, based on the evidence gathered
150 | Interface Design
from classroom observations, answers given by students in focus groups and teacher
interviews, it can be concluded that not all principles and characteristics outlined in the
Malaysian government guidelines have been properly applied, and even when some of them
are applied in the courseware, the outcomes do not always lead to attracting and maintaining
the interest of students and teachers in the courseware. This suggests that the existing
guidelines may need to extend into more detail for the future development of interactive
Science courseware in Malaysia.
5.6.2 Recommendations for extending the characteristics requirements in
the existing guidelines
From the findings drawn for the content analysis, observations, focus groups and interviews
to ascertain teachers‟ and students‟ concerns and expectations, it can be concluded that
several additional characteristics should be added to the existing Malaysian government
guidelines to assist developers in designing the interface‟s screen appearance, arranging the
components, and providing systems feedback. These extended characteristics are proposed
in Table 5.8.
151 | Interface Design
Principle Characteristics in the
Ministry guidelines
Additional characteristics
recommended from this study
The principle
of consistency
within a
product
The clear sequences of similar
screens
The consistency of the colours
The consistency of text style Use similar designs for icons with the same
meaning
The consistency of characters Colour changes in icons used in the navigation
bar should be the same throughout
The same actions yield the same
result
The similar position of the main
menu
The standard tool on navigation
bar
The same introductory montage
The principle
of flexibility of
the system’s
response to the
individual
differences
Provide the user with buttons to
pause, continue, go back or exit
the activity
Navigational buttons must be functioning
appropriately
Icons on the navigation bar should include
image and text
Provide a combination of images text and
voice instructions to sustain student interest
and appeal to different learning styles
Provide users with an appropriate
working sound/audio
Information presented through text must be
readable by all the students in different
contexts. Avoid the use of small body text in
general
Have a confirmation dialogue to
confirm any user action
Avoid the use of blinking text
Avoid biases of ethnicity and
religion in any images used
Provide graphic images with text information
as a supportive learning tool
Avoid biases of ethnicity and
religion in colour used
Visual images must be suitable to
the intended user‟s age
Provide users with more video or animation in
explaining content
The colours used must be suitable to the intended user‟s age
The design features used for any component should be accessible by most students
The audio used for human
characters are appropriate with
gender or age
The audio effect used for the
symbols or icons should be
appropriate
The text characters used should be
easy to read
The text characters must be
suitable to the intended user group
The principle
of efficiency of
feedback given
to the user
Provide accurate responses on the
confirmation dialogue
Immediate feedback should be clear and easy
to understand by the student
Provide users with visual or audio
effects on actions that the user
performs
Immediate feedback should be placed together
with a motivational message, which is not
always the same.
Allow users to operate the task
efficiently
Provide users with colour changes or images
on actions that the user performs
Table 5.8: The set of additional characteristics recommended from this study
152 | Interface Design
Additional characteristics that might be recommended out of this study, which relate to the
principle of consistency, include that icons for the navigation bar should be both visual
images and text explanations. The navigation bar should function as expected by users
(technical problems and bugs should be rectified); the design of icons should be in a similar
style throughout the courseware and the colour of icons on the navigation bar should be
persistent from page to page.
In relation to the principle of flexibility, in order to maintain student interest, information
presented through text should of a sufficient size to be easily read by all students, even when
projected on to a screen at the front of the class. Therefore small body text and blinking text
should be avoided. In addition, images, video and animations should be employed as much
as possible to provide an alternate path to understanding (and it should be noted that these
two components are very popular with students and teachers). Likewise, to accommodate
different user preferences and learning styles, any graphic images could be accompanied by
text and voice instructions.
As requested by the students and teachers, the interface design of future interactive science
courseware should also provide immediate feedback to acknowledge actions and it needs to
be clear and easy to understand through colour changes, sounds or images. But it should
also give varied and second and third level feedback, which involves acknowledging
whether an answer is right or wrong and how the response might be improved in future.
5.7 Conclusion
Previous chapters have reported on the comparative analysis of principles, characteristics
and components that have been established in the literature and recommended in the
Malaysian government guidelines against a content analysis of the interactive courseware to
establish the quality of the interface design. This chapter has taken a complementary
approach and has reported the outcomes of fieldwork (conducted via classroom observations,
focus group discussions and in-depth interviews) to explain how the interface aspects of the
interactive courseware is experienced and perceived by students and teachers in terms of
facilitating their interaction and supporting the overall learning experience.
153 | Interface Design
The quantitative and qualitative data obtained from the fieldwork has established the
usefulness of interactive courseware in schools and the willingness of school principals and
teachers to employ it in principle. All teachers who participated in this research project
agreed that when the interactive courseware is being used, it increases their students‟
interest and they become more engaged in their learning process in the classroom. This
confirms previous studies on the use of interactive courseware in the classroom, which have
consistently found that students commonly experience positive effects on their learning
when using interactive courseware as a complement to traditional methods (Bee Theng &
Chia Hua, 2008; Jennings & Onwuegbuzie, 2001; Khoo, 2003). These results also support
the argument made by Stolterman (2008) and Sutcliffe, Kurniawan and Shin (2006) that the
enjoyment offered by interactive courseware can increase learners‟ motivation and
participation.
However, the school principal interviews in this research project have identified three main
factors that contribute to the extent of courseware usage in their schools. These include the
provision of adequate computing facilities; the availability of technical support; and the
quality of the interactive courseware. If any of these are lacking, they present barriers to use.
The effect of poor interface design as a major barrier to courseware usage has been reported
in several prior studies on the implementation of interactive courseware in the Malaysian
Smart School Project (Azian, 2006; Bismillah Khatoon Abdul Kader, 2008; Cloke & Sharif,
2001; Thang et al., 2009b). These studies have concluded that the interactive courseware for
the Smart School Project has failed to provide a high quality learning experience for
students and teachers because of poor interface design that does not accommodate their
learning styles, access to content and their interaction with the functions. They have also
concluded that this affects the teachers in terms of their interest and motivation to use the
interactive courseware as a new method of teaching.
The findings from this fieldwork confirm this previous research as well as identifying other
factors such as facilities, and support. However the findings of this study extend these
findings by helping to clarify the arguments raised by previous researchers in Malaysia by
pointing to specific issues and by providing a foundation for comparison against well
established international design principles and the Malaysian government guidelines.
154 | Interface Design
By identifying key principles of effective interface design from the literature, the study has
provided a rigorous and appropriate basis for critique. By comparing the courseware against
them, and then going on to evaluate students‟ and teachers‟ interactions and perceptions of
usability and engagement, this study provides empirical evidence that helps to confirm the
validity of the principles provided by the Ministry of Education. It is also able to propose
refining the existing guidelines and provides new recommended characteristics for the
development of interactive courseware in the future. This is a major objective of this
research study: to recommend a new or extended set of principles and characteristics for
effective interface design for future courseware developed in Malaysia.
155 | Interface Design
6. Understanding the design of the courseware
interfaces as part of the software development
process
6.1 Introduction
In order to understand how the interface design issues that have been identified in the
Malaysian Smart School Project courseware have arisen, the development process has been
investigated as part of this research project. This investigation was conducted through two
methods: a contextual document analysis and face-to-face interviews with the courseware
developers. The main purpose of the contextual document analysis was to determine models
for the software development process that have been proposed in the international literature,
as well as the processes recommended by the Malaysian Ministry of Education in their
guidelines. The objective was then to establish whether the ministry guidelines correlate
with international expectations of best practice. The primary purpose of the interviews with
the courseware developers was to determine whether the developers were aware of, and
applied, international models and/or the processes suggested by the Ministry.
The overall goal of this comparative process was to understand whether there are any issues
in the current process of software development that affect the interface design adversely and,
in conjunction with the data from school principals‟ and teachers‟ interviews, to establish
how the working relationships between the stakeholders (including the government, the
developers and the end users of the courseware) are structured and whether this has any
impact on the quality of interface design. These objectives relate to Research Question 3,
which asks: How is the interface design of the courseware developed and does this
contribute to the quality of the interface design?
6.2 Models for software development in the literature
The software development process can be described as a development life cycle. In order to
manage and ensure the success of computer software, a series of structured development
activities has been developed over many years and these have been formulated into
development processes. Throughout the literature, a variety of systems development models
can be found, each outlining detailed structures and processes and a variety of activities that
156 | Interface Design
are closely linked. While many models are acceptable, depending on the circumstances and
the goals of the product, it should be noted at the outset that variant approaches impact on
aspects of the outcome (Bradler, 1999; Bostock, 1996; Lee & Sullivan, 1996). Therefore, an
appropriate development model should provide the developer with a systematic, well-
disciplined and practical approach to the design, development and maintenance of the
software.
There are three classic development models established in the literature, which will be
summarised in detail here. And, because this research project focuses on interactive
courseware for educational purposes, a well-known instructional system development model
that is identified in the literature will also be described. This includes then: (1) the classic
waterfall model, (2) the iterative model, (3) the spiral model and (4) the ADDIE model for
instructional system development. Within all of these models, software developers and
educators commonly work together to generate the learning content, formulate the learning
activities and assessment strategies and determine the feedback on the developed software.
A brief overview of the approaches of each model follows:
1. The classic waterfall model
The best-known and perhaps oldest process for software development is the waterfall model,
which has been used since it was proposed by Winston W. Royce in 1970 (Beynon-Davies,
1993). It involves a phased process, which includes requirements analysis and planning,
design, development, implementation and evaluation, in a sequence as follows:
1. The requirement analysis and planning phase involves defining the target users of
the potential product and identifying their requirements and needs (in the case of
courseware this would include the needs relevant to the students and teachers and the
learning objectives).
2. The design phase focuses on determining the design solutions to be used by
considering approaches to delivery formats, structure (which is commonly referred
to as information architecture and is guided by a flowchart and storyboard), interface
and screen design, and elements of the look and feel.
3. The development phase where the design components and programming are
assembled as a functioning prototype. Alpha and beta testing occur at this stage.
4. An implementation phase: where the end product (or in some models, a prototype) is
implemented and provided to the target user (or a representative sample group).
157 | Interface Design
5. An evaluation phase: which focuses on gathering feedback on the end product from
actual users.
These phases are summarised in Figure 6.1.
Figure 6.1: The waterfall model: progress flows from the top to the bottom like a waterfall
(Source: Beynon-Davies, 1993)
The development process of the waterfall model moves from one phase to the next phase
only when the previous phase is completed and perfected. According to Preece (1994), this
model attempts to separate the development life cycle into discrete activities by creating a
series of linear actions in which each step forms the basis for the next step, and the
correctness of each step can be checked. For example, as Figure 6.1 shows, when analysis is
complete, the process proceeds to the design stage and, when it is complete, development
commences and so on.
In the waterfall model, the interface design occurs in the design phase and the development
phase when an instructional plan is provided by the development team, including a set of
requirements and flow charts that show a general path of connections in the interface design.
At this point, designers carefully consider the arrangement of screen layout, a style guide for
Evaluation
Analysis Planning
Design
Development
Implementation
Flowchart and Storyboard
Determine look and feel
Potential Screen Design
Media creation
Alpha and beta testing
Product use by user
1
2
3
5
4
Define goal and target user
Determine the medium delivery
Testing of product use
158 | Interface Design
graphic elements, and a navigation system that can engage users in meaningful and
authentic tasks (Wilson & Cole, 1991; Wilson et al., 1993). To make this process efficient,
effective communication between members in the development team such as a graphic
designer, programmer, instructional designer, and a content expert is essential.
This waterfall model offers an advantage to developers because it breaks a complex task
down into smaller tasks and it allows everyone involved in the development process to see
exactly what has been completed and what remains to be done throughout the process.
Nevertheless, a number of problems with the waterfall model are identified in the literature.
The main weakness is that it does not include an opportunity for end-users to review and
evaluate the potential product being created until it is complete as it does not include interim
feedback between stages. Therefore correction becomes much more difficult. Moreover,
once the process has progressed, there is no way the product under development can go
back to the previous stage because it always moves in a single direction. In response to this
problem, some alternative models have been introduced, some of which involve the steps of
the waterfall model as a foundation.
2. The iterative model
The iterative model, which was introduced by Boehm in 1985, provides an alternative
model for the software development process. In terms of the phases involved, it incorporates
planning, requirements and analysis, design, evaluation, and implementation. It is therefore
similar to the waterfall model but it involves a cyclic process which includes multiple
iterations or versions in a repetitive process. This model introduces prototyping, testing and
analysis during the design phase and involves redesigning on the basis of the feedback
received, in order to refine the quality of the final product. This iterative cycle within the
model is represented in Figure 6.2 by the green arrows.
159 | Interface Design
Figure 6.2: The iterative model: flows of development are based on a cyclic process
(Source: Boehm, 1985)
The most important advantage of the iterative model is that prototyping in the design stage
offers the developers the opportunity to elicit periodic, objective feedback on the
appropriateness of the solution, which allows the developer to make incremental
adjustments and make corrections based on a better understanding of the needs and
requirements of the user. By implementing this cyclic process, which involves input from
the end-users at an early stage on aspects like the proposed look and feel of the application,
developers can capture and fix possible weaknesses in the underlying interface design at the
prototype phase, rather than after all the components have been integrated into the design.
This model therefore emphasises the importance of collaborative work between developers
and users, which is necessary for the product under development. Early input from end-
users not only has the potential to highlight problems earlier in the design phase, this
method can shorten the development time of a project (Connell & Shafer, 1989). It
minimizes the risk of conflict between users and the development team that can arise in the
waterfall model, and it can help to ensure that risks are minimized because it ensures that
the product will be effective and appropriate for the user. Besides helping to ensure that the
actual needs of users are met, so increasing the values of the product to the user, it also
provides a sense of ownership by these stakeholders over the product because of their input
into it development.
The iterative development
process
Design
Deployment
Evaluation
Testing
Implementation
Requirements & Analysis
Planning
Prototyping
1
2
3
4
5
160 | Interface Design
3. The spiral model
In 1988, Boehm proposed further modifications to overcome the limitations of the waterfall
model and the iterative model. This model is referred to as the spiral model or Boehm‟s
Model. The steps employed are similar to the steps in the traditional waterfall model
because, like the iterative model, it is an improved version of the waterfall model on which
it is based. It combines the advantages of prototyping within the progression of the waterfall
model and involves a number of iterations as it passes through four main steps: analysis of
requirements, planning, development and evaluation. As shown in Figure 6.3, these unfold
as a spiral.
Figure 6.3: A spiral model: progress flows of development must be repeated more than
once (Source: Boehm, 1988)
Like the iterative model, from the early stages through to final product development, the
process is highly dependent on prototyping designs, which are evaluated by representative
users. With this focus on prototype design and testing, the spiral model emphasises
flexibility in meeting end-user requirements to minimise the risk of ineffectiveness. While
developers make changes in structure, content and presentation of the material, at the time
in which problems or potential problems are encountered, the spiral model explicitly
encourages alternative approaches to be considered to address them.
The first iteration of the spiral model is considered most important. This is because
normally, at the first iteration, most potential risks, obstacles and needs are identified. In the
Evaluate Development
Analysis of
requirement
Planning
161 | Interface Design
next iteration, all the factors and problems discovered in the first phase will be resolved
with great care before being re-tested.
Because the process emphasises risk analysis, and because the knowledge of end-users is
actively incorporated and contributes to the design solution, not only representative user
groups, but highly skilled people in the areas of planning, risk analysis and mitigation,
development and customer relations are involved in the process outlined in the spiral model.
In addition, because it involves several periods of consultation and multiple cycles, the
model requires more time to complete. This model can therefore be expensive to implement
and may only be cost effective for large-scale software development projects, where both
the budget and risks are higher.
4. The ADDIE model
In the literature on software development for educational courseware, there is strong
support for the inclusion of an instructional design perspective in the process. It is argued
that expertise on teaching and learning is essential for the development of a more effective
product (Duffy & Jonassen, 1991). The ADDIE model is one of hundreds of instructional
design models proposed for guiding the process of development for educational materials.
The process of the ADDIE model involves similar phases to other generic models. These
include Assessment, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. While these
core steps of the ADDIE model may follow generic models, the ADDIE activities are not
organized in a linear or straight-forward way. They are cyclical (Gustafson & Branch,
2002) and recursive like the spiral and iterative model, but their central focus is on
evaluation, which sits at the heart of the model. The iterative aspect of this model is
represented by the line and arrows running vertically down the left side of the model and
the two-headed arrows between each component, as depicted in Figure 6.4. Each step has
an outcome that feeds into the next step in the sequence but evaluation is a persistent
interim step to ensure perpetual quality improvement.
162 | Interface Design
Figure 6.4: The ADDIE model: Core elements of the phases of quality improvement
(Source: Smith & Ragan, 1998)
As a useful model for creating effective interactive learning material for education, this
model highlights analysis as the most important step in the process. The analysis of users
needs and requirements, as well as input of instructional designers, helps developers–
particularly the designers–to establish a clear understanding of the gaps in the users‟
existing knowledge and skills and strategies to bridge them. Therefore, during the analysis
stage, the designer identifies the learning problem, the goals and objectives, the users‟ needs,
instructional strategies and methods. This step is necessary in order to define the
parameters for the production of the product, including the learning environment, any
constraints on limitations or opportunities, delivery options, and the timeline for the project.
In this model, the creation of the content and production of learning materials occurs during
the design phase. Generally, rapid prototyping of the interface design is conducted at this
stage to facilitate feedback. Mood boards for the look and feel and detailed storyboards
present paths through content. Some scholars describe this as a brainstorming step, where
feedback is part of the analysis of the needs of users or audiences.
Analyze
Develop
Design Implement Evaluation
163 | Interface Design
Using information gathered from this analysis and design phase, the development stage
begins, complete with evaluation and measurement of how well the product achieves its
objective. The evaluation of the ADDIE model consists of two parts: formative and
summative. The formative evaluation may involve peer review, a walk-through of a rapid
prototype, observations of the target group using the software and interviews (individually
or in focus groups) with potential users. In each stage of development, these evaluations
inform all aspects of the design including the interfaces, navigation, and how the software‟s
functionality supports student learning. Summative evaluations consist of tests, based on
performance, and provide formal opportunities for feedback from the users. Both tiers of
evaluation provide insights into any false assumptions on the part of designers and
developers, as well as design errors, and any barriers to achievement of the desired
outcomes.
A software development process must therefore be understood as a phased and rigorous
endeavour comprised of many separate but inter-related activities that each have a bearing
on the creation of products. While all of the four models discussed above help to ensure this,
all have advantages and disadvantages. If the problem is well defined and well understood
and needs little change, the life cycle of the waterfall model may be sufficient to produce a
product in the most cost-effective way. However, if the developer lacks a clear
understanding of needs of users, they are unlikely to be able to produce comprehensive and
entirely appropriate specifications at the beginning of the process. In this case, the developer
must choose a longer life cycle and more complex approach, which involves stakeholder
participation (e.g. spiral model or iterative model). And, to promote the use of technology as
an effective tool to support learning, the instructional design process of the ADDIE model is
perhaps the best system design process currently available that can be practiced by the
developers. In addition, this model emphasises that input should be sought from all
stakeholders prior to and during the development of courseware to ensure quality outcomes,
minimise user frustration and facilitate meaningful product delivery. Many education
experts therefore argue that it is the best approach currently available for designing effective
educational courseware. This is particularly the case in relation to interface design because,
as Bodker (1991) and Rushby (1992) have recognised, interface design is one of the most
important and complex activities in the software development process.
164 | Interface Design
6.2.1 Interface design within the development process
No matter which development process is used, the design and production of the interface is
particularly important, because users tend to rate the usability of a product on its interface
design performance. This is because the interface is their first contact point (Faulkner, 1998),
and users will tend to make judgements on first impressions, which are created by the
interface rather than functionality (Mayhew, 1992). Indeed, many products are never used
because potential users never get past the initial interfaces (Galitz, 2002).
Besides, establishing the look and feel of a product (which should balance an expression of
the product „identity‟ with the sensibilities of the target group of users), there is considerable
agreement in the literature that effective interfaces are those that are easy to use and which
enable users to achieve their goals in the context of product use (Mayhew, 1992). Therefore,
the development team must decide how users will interact with, and navigate through, the
software system and choose appropriate methods within the interface to provide instructions
to users, and provide multiple types of feedback. Thus, courseware developers need to
consider how the interface design affects users‟ experience, as well as which elements and
principles need to be incorporated in a particular context and for a particular audience.
Given this complexity, interface design can be viewed as a complete systems design process
in its own right. As Bodker (1991) and Shneiderman (1998) argue, interface design is not
something that can take place late in the development process after all the important
decisions have been made, but is something that must be continuously addressed throughout
the process, usually by a specialist interface designer in the development team. And, to
develop an effective interface, a detailed understanding of the users and their needs is
required, which should involve stakeholder consultation, if not participation in the design
process itself.
6.2.2 The role of the user in the development process
Any software application has to meet the requirements of a real group of end-users in a cost-
effective manner (Kennedy, 2001). It is therefore now widely acknowledged that designing
and producing an effective interface must begin by considering the needs of end-users (see,
for example, Schneiderman, 1998). That is, when designing any computer software
(including interactive courseware), it is important to not only consider how it will
165 | Interface Design
successfully meet the specifications of the product requirements, but the different
expectations and needs of its end-users. By gathering information from users, it becomes
possible to understand their goals, behaviour, preferences, and general work practices. This
includes consideration of how the product will be used, how interactivity will suit the users‟
goals, and how they will relate to its interface and content. The input of users helps create
better quality systems. Conversely, the lack of user involvement is often associated with the
failure of software. (Gould & Lewis, 1985)
The type and extent of user input varies in different development models. At the very least,
the development team must have information on who the users are, what they want to do,
where they want to use the software, and how they will use it. This clearly involves analysis
of the characteristics of the users and their goals, as well as how these goals have been
achieved in the past. The iterative model and spiral model take this further and include the
process of feedback, which influences the direction of the design and, in the case of the
ADDIE model, it may involve redesign work. Muller et al. (1997) go further to claim that
user involvement in the development process is so important that stakeholders should be
involved as co-designers. In this case, user‟s involvement is not simple information
gathering, where users are considered to be informants, but active contributors to designing
the system.
The international literature is therefore clear that empowering and involving end-users in
the development process is important, as it has proven benefits in the development of
effective interface design and usable software. Indeed, Preece, Rogers and Sharp (2002)
assert that the degree of user involvement not only affects the level of user satisfaction, but
is related to perceived courseware success. User participation is particularly essential in the
early stage of development to ensure the success of the system, in which development
approaches such as prototyping, is valuable. However, as Oliver & Herrington (2003)
suggest, in practice, courseware developers often assume that designing simply involves
common sense, while they also commonly hold different views on the required
functionality of a product.
166 | Interface Design
6. 3 The software development process in Malaysia
To understand the current software development process in Malaysia against this
background of international views, an analysis of the Malaysian government guidelines was
first conducted to determine the process recommended by the Malaysian Ministry of
Education in their guidelines for the developers. The purpose of this was to see how these
guidelines compare with the systematic, well-disciplined and practical approaches of the
four models discussed above. A review of the Malaysian government guidelines is presented
in the following section.
6.3.1 The software production flow outlined by the Ministry
As stated in the Methodology chapter, the courseware developers involved in the
development of interactive courseware for the Smart School Project must go through a
tender process by submitting an application with a sample of their past work and a financial
plan to the Ministry. The Ministry then appoints selected courseware developers to the
project and provides them with development guidelines.
The Malaysian government guidelines have two sections. The first part, which has been
discussed in detail in Chapter Four under Section 4.2.2 (Comparative analysis of the
courseware with the government guidelines), relates to the specific design requirements.
The second part outlines specifications for the production process, along with submission
requirements. It is this section that will be discussed here.
A flowchart of the development processes that is provided to courseware developers in the
Malaysian government guidelines is reproduced below in Figure 6.5.
167 | Interface Design
Figure 6.5: Production flow for Malaysian interactive courseware as outlined by the
Malaysian Ministry of Education
As shown in the diagram, the recommended process begins with developing a lesson map
and storyboard as part of overall planning activities. Following that, the preparation of
multimedia content and technical development should take place, according to the
guidelines. These design and development activities required only the involvement of the
development team. Then, the courseware goes through the testing and evaluation stage. It
must undergo beta testing by the Ministry and any refinements to the final look of the
product must be made by the developer before the courseware is deployed into the schools.
The steps outlined in the Ministry guidelines are therefore quite similar to the traditional
waterfall model described above. That is, the process begins with a planning phase,
followed by design and development, then testing, and ends with evaluation of the product
during implementation. The guidelines do not include any improvements on the model that
are proposed by the iterative, spiral or ADDIE models. For example, no prototyping method
is set out as part of the planning or design and development phases, and no mention is made
of user input or involvement during any phase in the flowchart. Instead, several stages
require approval from the Ministry to proceed to the next steps. Thus the current production
flow outlined in the Ministry guidelines focuses solely on the roles of developers and the
Ministry. And, while it has been established in the literature for some time that involvement
and input from users is important, this does not feature in the Ministry guidelines, and users
Preparing
Lesson Plan
Preparing
Storyboard
Developing
Multimedia
Content
Final
Look
YES YES
YES
YES NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
Product
Delivery
NO
To be submitted to the MOE team for approval
Developing
Multimedia
Technical
Beta
Testing
168 | Interface Design
are not necessarily involved at any level. That is, the guidelines replicate an outdated and
broadly criticised development model.
6.3.2 Processes followed by the courseware developers
To understand whether the methods and processes of a standard development model
described in the international literature, or in the Malaysian government guidelines have
been followed by the developers of the Smart School courseware, face-to-face interviews
with the developers were conducted. The interviews were designed to provide insights into
how the production and development of courseware is practised in Malaysia at present,
including whether the developers comply with the Ministry guidelines; the extent that the
developers‟ understand the role and principles of interface design; and the extent to which
prototyping and user involvement is included in the development process.
As explained in the Methodology chapter, twenty courseware developers from a number of
development companies, which have been involved in producing the Malaysian Smart
School courseware, were approached by phone and email in early April 2009 from Australia.
They were then emailed information letters and consent forms. Ten of these courseware
developers agreed to become research participants. Fieldwork in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
was then carried out in May 2009. Interviews were conducted at the courseware developers‟
offices through the use of similar procedures used in interviews of school principals and
teachers that have been discussed previously. Table 6.1 shows a summary of the interviews
consisting of interviewees‟ roles, duration of the interviews, and dates of data collection.
Interviewee role Average Duration
(minutes)
Date of data collection
6 Team leaders 40 -60 min
04 May 2009
12 May 2009
14 May 2009
20 May 2009
25 May 2009
26 May 2009
4 Heads of multimedia designer 45 -75 min
07 May 2009
18 May 2009
22 May 2009
28 May 2009
Table 6.1: Summary of interviews with courseware developers
169 | Interface Design
In individual, open-ended interviews, each developer was asked a series of investigative
questions, which can be seen in Appendix 12 of this thesis. A video-recorder and audio-
recorder were used to record the interview sessions with permission of the interviewees. At
the beginning of the interviews, it was explained to the participants that any comments by
them would be de-identified and so would form an anonymous response. The data gathered
from the interviews was then transcribed by the researcher and translated by the National
Institute of Translation Malaysia.
Interview questions focused on the level of involvement of courseware developers in the
software development process, their current practices of interface design production for
interactive courseware, and the degree of implementation of guidelines provided by the
Ministry. Three related themes arose out of the content analysis of the interview transcripts.
The first two reflect the interview questions and include the current process of development
and the common steps involved and practiced, and understandings of the role of interface
design among the courseware developers. However, while the focus of the interviews was
on the development process and design understandings, many participants also used the
opportunity to express particular concerns about their broader experiences as courseware
developers. Therefore a third theme appeared: the challenges faced by the courseware
developers in the current development process. Each of these themes is detailed below.
6.3.3 The development process for interactive courseware in Malaysia
In general, the interviews revealed that the current flow of software development practised
by the Malaysian courseware developers is similar to the product life-cycle of the waterfall
model. However the responses show that most of the Malaysian developers also initiate a
requirements and planning phase up front, and include iterative phases in the development
stage and evaluation stage to refine the courseware. Therefore, it is not carried out in an
entirely, linear way. The process, as it was explained by the developers, is tabulated
according to responses given in Table 6.2.
170 | Interface Design
Developers
STEPS OF DEVELOPMENT BEING PRACTICED
Planning
Analysis
Design Development
Evaluation
Implementation User need
analysis
Product
Requirement
analysis
In house
Testing
User
Testing
1 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
2 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
3 No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
4 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
5 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
6 No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
7 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
8 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
9 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
10 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Table 6.2: Summary of steps practiced by the interviewed Malaysian developers
171 | Interface design
Therefore, developers‟ interviews have determined that five particular steps are being
practiced, which are similar to those most commonly referred to in the literature. They
include the requirements and planning stage, analysis stage, design stage, development and
testing stage, evaluation and feedback stage and finally, the delivery and implementation
stage. This courseware development process is visualised in a diagram in Figure 6.6 and is
then compared to the waterfall model in 6.7.
Figure 6.6: The common flow of the development process currently implemented by
courseware developers in Malaysia
1
2
3
5
4
Requirement and
Planning
Understanding
the scope of
work to be
done, the
cost, schedule
and tasks to
accomplish
Analysis
Defining the
target user and
determining an
appropriate
medium of
delivery
Design
Storyboarding,
Prototyping and
Media creation
Delivery and
Implementation
Final product
implementation and
installation in schools
Getting
content
approval from
the Ministry
(government)
Development and
Testing
Evaluation
and Feedback
Authoring and
integrating
media
elements into
a whole
package and
alpha testing 6
Perfection of the
courseware
172 | Interface design
Figure 6.7: A comparison of steps in the development process in the waterfall model and the
development current practices in Malaysia
However it is important to clarify that the identified differences from the waterfall model (the
inclusion of a requirements and planning phase and an iterative phase), does not bring the
process in line with the Spiral, Iterative or ADDIE models. Firstly, while the interviews
revealed that most of the Malaysian courseware developers (8 out of 10) initiate a
requirements and planning phase up front, this includes (1) details of a development work
schedule, (2) tasks to be accomplished by the development teams, and (3) the scope of work
to be done, and the project manager usually consider factors such as the capability of the
team, the budget constraints and completing the task within the given time frame. This
detailed and careful planning does not include a user needs analysis, but an analysis of the
ministry guidelines.
Secondly, while the process includes iterative phases in the development stage and evaluation
stage to refine the courseware, the interviews revealed that the iterative phase is not entirely
similar to the iterative process suggested in the Spiral, Iterative or ADDIE models in which,
if an error or mismatch is noticed at any phase of the project by target group feedback, the
previous stage is repeated from the beginning. In the current practices of developers in
Evaluation
Analysis
Design
Development
Implementation
Traditional Waterfall model
Development & Testing
Evaluation
Analysis
Design
Delivery & Feedback
Malaysian’s typical development life cycle
Requirement & Planning
173 | Interface design
Malaysia, a revision process only occurs if an error is revealed within the development and
evaluation stages. The reason provided by the participants is that to make changes then is less
time consuming and expensive than the ADDIE model where a change means a total rework.
Moreover, the changes are based on internal reviews and requests by the Ministry only. No
testing is undertaken with user groups so changes are not based on their feedback. In this
regard, it can concluded that the iterative process being practiced by the developers in
Malaysia is simply to ensure that all Ministry requirements are signed off, rather than to
produce a product that optimally fulfils end-user needs.
According to the literature (eg. Stellman & Greene, 2005), there are three types of analysis
that must be conducted before the design process begins: a user needs analysis, a product
analysis, and a systems requirement analysis. However, it became clear in the interviews that
no participants indicated that they conduct a user needs analysis before starting the design
process. Almost all project managers and their development teams simply conduct an
analysis of the tender documents and the guidelines provided by the Ministry. As explained
by the participants involved, this involves focusing on specific media requirements and
instructional specifications in the Ministry‟s guidelines. Further information is gathered from
printed textbooks and other relevant sources in order to achieve the requirements of these
specifications.
When asked specific questions about why a deeper understanding of the user is not sought,
various responses were given. One project manager argued that it is unnecessary, based on
the assumption that these needs were understood in advance. He stated that:
We are the developers of the interactive educational courseware so we should know
the basic requirements of the courseware. So I don’t think we need to do a user
needs analysis. (Developer Interview, respondent 2)
Other developers cited various pragmatic reasons relating to access to user groups, budget
and time. These broad issues are encapsulated by one of the project managers who stated:
According to the contract, the period of time to complete the courseware is one year.
But then, if you can see, it is not a one year project. In actual conditions we have
only 8 to 9 months to finish the project. So we have to speed up … If you conduct a
needs analysis with the user, it will take more time. It is not easy to get permission
from the school principal to enter their school. It will involve more additional work
and will take you several months to get permission even though they are in the same
174 | Interface design
ministry. Our concern is to complete the process of the courseware development as
early as we can, so that we can move on to another project. (Developer Interview,
respondent 3)
Another raised schedule constraints in another way, saying that:
So far, we haven’t yet conducted a user needs analysis with the students. This is
because we are familiar with the Ministry project. We also don’t have time to
concentrate on that because we are not only taking jobs from the government. At the
same time we also have to complete other jobs.(Developer Interview, respondent 1)
In relation to the other critical point at which user input is recommended in the literature,
namely user testing during and after the design and development phases, the interviews
clarified that this does not occur either. The participants reported that the only testing to occur
is within their own production team. This testing is performed to ensure that the interface
design and interactive courseware has been developed in accordance with the specifications,
and that it meets the requirements in the tender documents and guidelines received from the
Ministry, as well as perfecting the functionality of the courseware by identifying bugs. As
exemplified by one of the project managers:
When the lessons are completely designed, in house testing will be conducted by a
team leader from each of the different departments. Usually during this process we
will make sure that all the functions are working properly. For example, if the voice
said “this is a ball” the arrow must be pointed towards the ball not other things.
(Developer Interview, respondent 1)
Clearly the developers try to implement the requests of the Ministry. As one commented:
We conduct product testing but only among our team in order to determine the weak
points of the courseware, and we modify it before sending it to the Ministry.
Generally, this testing is primarily focused on evaluation of the courseware
functionality. (Developer Interview, respondent 3)
However this dependency on the ministry guidelines and oversight means that the developers
feel that they do not need to take responsibility for any deeper understanding of the users,
their needs, or broader design aspects such as the interface design. As one project manager
summarised:
Actually, the authorization of decisions, especially on interface design, is in the
Ministry hands, not ours. (Developer Interview, respondent 4)
175 | Interface design
This suggests that the developers do not consider it part of their role to undertake user testing,
as the Ministry has ultimate responsibility for quality and what defines it.
In summary, the courseware developers do not consider end-user involvement necessary or
possible within the timeframe, nor their responsibility. However, self-claimed familiarity
with the tasks required is not enough to ensure that the interactive courseware is embraced by
end-users. As the literature has established, compared with other models of software
development, such an approach carries with it a high potential for deficiencies in the content,
interface and interaction design of software products.
6.3.4 Perceptions of learning concepts among courseware developers
As has been established, through reference to the literature, the success of interactive
courseware not only depends on courseware developers having an in-depth understanding of
the role of interface design (which is crucial to ensuring that users can interact effectively and
find what they are looking for efficiently), but also an understanding of the users‟ needs in
terms of the role of the courseware. However, the interviews revealed that most (8 out of 10)
developers who participated in this research project lack an in-depth knowledge of the
principles of interactive learning.
However, instead of taking the initiative to learn pedagogical frameworks, they rely on the
guidelines and requirements of the Ministry, along with general principles for software
design and understandings gained from prior involvement in the development of other types
of interactive material such as corporate videos and multimedia presentations. This is
illustrated by a project manager‟s response that,
We just develop it based on our previous experience. (Developer Interview,
respondent 2)
The assumption that this is adequate is revealed in the comment of another developer that,
There is not much difference when you are preparing digital learning material. The
difference is just a platform of delivery. But at the end of the day, it depends on the
user. Either they like to use it or not…it is just about preparing the look of the
product. (Developer Interview, respondent 4)
176 | Interface design
Yet, designing interaction and interfaces for courseware is a very different task to generic
software and it is not just a matter of developing interesting graphics and presentation by
combining multimedia elements. Interactive courseware has emerged as an instructional
technology with the potential to overcome limitations of traditional media and provide the
prospect of engaging learning environments with strong visual and interactive elements.
Therefore, an understanding of this potential, as well as the understanding that each piece of
learning material has different user needs and contexts, is essential.
Reliance on previous experience from different contexts appears to have led the majority of
courseware development teams involved in the courseware for the Malaysian Smart School
Project (9 out of 10 developers) to assume that the development of educational courseware
simply requires an „improvement‟ process, which involves converting a printed version of
course material into an electronic format. One participant demonstrated his understanding of
the difference by this response:
Designing interfaces for the computer screen is different from printed design. You
cannot simply prepare the interfaces without having some understanding about the
overall concept. (Developer Interview, respondent 3)
However, as another, more representative, informant said:
… Sometimes we just convert the sample test from the existing textbook into the
interactive courseware. It’s easier than spending a long time on analysis of the
requirements. (Developer Interview, respondent 2)
Designing effective interfaces for interactive material is not only a matter of transmitting
information between the computer and individual through graphic presentation and the
inclusion of multimedia. Interactive courseware should create experiences for the user that
provide them with capabilities, engage them in activities, and create a desire to continue to
using the application – all in the interests of ensuring that they understand the educational
material presented. By revealing that developers simply convert printed material into a digital
format, albeit with multimedia components, the responses gathered in this study suggest that
the courseware may fall short in terms of this potential.
177 | Interface design
6.3.5 Issues and challenges faced by the courseware developers
Some of the causes of these issues can be related to the challenges faced by the courseware
developers. Those highlighted in the interview transcripts include time constraints, authority
for decision-making, the availability of expertise within the team, and the nature of
relationships between key stakeholders. These are each discussed in detail below.
1. Time constraints and authority for decision-making
When discussing problems faced in the courseware development process, most developers (8
out of 10) reported that they have difficulties with the current production flow due to the
directives of the Ministry. 7 out of 10 argue that it is hard for them to provide high quality
products when the authority for the allocation of time, as well as approval of the final product,
belongs to the Ministry. The courseware developers clearly expressed that they would like
more time (and by implication budget). They feel they must reduce the time-lines and
development costs in line with tender allocations by the ministry. And frustrations with
Ministry oversight was perhaps most succinctly expressed by the following quote:
There are lots of opinions, lots of reviews, and lots of contradictions in the process
of completing this interactive courseware. (Developer Interview, respondent 4)
The developers called for more agency over decision-making and less red tape in the
development process, as well as greater funding of development time–all of which are in the
hands of the Ministry.
2. Multiracial influences and cultural demands
Adding to production pressures is another challenge faced by the courseware developers in
Malaysia–the cultural and multiracial demands of the local context. As noted in the
discussion on the Ministry guidelines, developers must be sensitive in terms of the use of
graphic images and colours in the interfaces. The graphic images that are used must represent
Malaysian identity. However, due to cultural and religious diversity in the three main ethnic
groups in Malaysia, the courseware cannot preference one ethnic group of users, particularly
in any human and animal characters. By way of example, the developers cannot use the
image of swine because swine can be an ethnic symbol of the Chinese community, or images
of cows, which are favoured by Indian society.
178 | Interface design
In terms of colour usage, it has been determined that colour can represent different meanings
in different cultural groups. For example, red is significant in the images of the Chinese
culture in which it is believed that red is a symbol of good wishes and good fortune. On the
other hand, green in Malay society is a symbol of religion. Because of these representational
and colour requirements, the courseware developers cannot simply use copies of visuals from
courseware of other countries. They have to spend considerable time preparing contextually
specific images for the interface design.
3. Team roles and expertise
Like the development of systems at large, designing and producing educational courseware
requires a broad range of expertise. As established in the international literature, a
development team usually requires a range of staff with specialised skills, such as
programmers, interaction designers, interface designers, instructional designers, language
editors, graphic designers, voice talent, animators and illustrators. Along with programmers
who design the backend, instructional designers establish the learning objectives, content
experts provide the teachable materials of the subject, interaction designers establish the
navigation and functionality, graphic designers produce visual images and aspects of
navigation and interaction such as icon design, and interface designers take responsibility for
the look and feel, combining images, text and icons into the screen layout, and ensuring clear
and intuitive communication through the arrangement and layout of elements. Clearly, each
of these experts plays a different role in the development process and they must work closely
together to ensure consistency and coherence in the product.
However, what became clear from the interviews was that in the Malaysian context, the
teams of courseware developers are small, with an average sizes ranged from 5 persons per
team to 8 persons per team (with others supporting the team on a short term or casual basis).
The developers stated that they are happy with small teams, for example:
We started with a team of five people. I thought that five was a perfect size.
(Developer Interview, respondent 6)
Another developer acknowledged this:
When we started the development, we just had six people involved, who are 2
programmers, 2 graphic designers, and I illustrator. That is good enough I think.
(Developer Interview, respondent 7)
179 | Interface design
However, most participants (7 out of 10 developers) acknowledged that their current
production team does not have the required range of expertise in relation to interaction and
interface design. As some claimed:
We have to rely on our graphic designer to take over the work related to interface
design. (Developer Interview, respondent 4)
We just have a graphic designer. And he is the person that is responsible for all
views of interface design. (Developer Interview, respondent 1)
While each development team typically has a seasoned project manager, who recognises the
importance of interface design in the development process, the interviews established that the
number of team members involved is so limited that team members must multi-task.
Furthermore, the Malaysian Ministry of Education guidelines require that the interactive
courseware must be presented in a rich multimedia format and include real-life simulations of
actual experiments or situations. In order to fulfil this requirement, the developers must
include appropriate interactive animations or simulations in the interface design. One project
manager describes this as follows:
The Ministry always requests non-static designs for their project. Which means the
entire courseware must be presented as fully interactive. They also prefer real life
simulations. (Developer Interview, respondent 4)
Because of the limited size and range of expertise in the teams, animations and interface
design are often outsourced to third parties. As one participant commented:
If we do not have enough of a workforce, especially skilled workers, tasks will be
outsourced to others. And frequently we outsource the job of preparing the interface
design to a freelance designer who is also a friend of our designer. But then, it is
based on our designer’s recommendations. (Developer Interview, respondent 1)
Another response attributes outsourcing to time pressures:
We need to outsource some of the tasks if our team is otherwise occupied. The
reason is we need to complete the MOE project commonly within 8 to 9 months.
Frequently we will outsource the most complicated tasks that take a long time to
finish. (Developer Interview, respondent 8)
180 | Interface design
An important challenge for the courseware developers in Malaysia then is to produce the
courseware with limited teams, multi-tasking across areas of expertise, and a disconnected
development team, which inevitably arises through outsourcing.
4. Pedagogical knowledge within the development team
Another major challenge faced by the production teams is also related to pedagogical
expertise. Most of the team members, including the interaction and interface designers, do not
have content expertise on the curriculum they are working with, not any training in pedagogy.
The process relies on the provision of the necessary disciplinary content and instructional
design for the courseware from content experts who are based in the Ministry team before the
production begins. According to the participants, this content expert is usually a former
teacher. If the interface designer or graphic designer in the developer‟s team has difficulty
understanding a specific concept, they will pose questions to this content expert in the
Ministry team during the early stages of the design process.
Unfortunately, most of the courseware developers who participated in this study feel that the
content expert in the Ministry team assumes that their interface designers have an
understanding of pedagogical concepts, while this is not the case. One project managers
explained this by saying:
It is not easy to fulfil their requirements because no one in our team is a teacher.
Ministry have a content expert and we need to work with them. But they expect that
our designers know everything. That is the problem. Sometimes, miscommunications
between our designer and the content expert happen. (Developer Interview,
respondent 2)
When asked if he considered that this difficulty contributes to the effectiveness of the
interface design during implementation, he went on to say:
Even though we follow the requirements in the tender document … As developers,
we just prepare it according to what is required by the content expert in order to get
approval from the Ministry. We aren’t bothered with what happens later; though we
worry it will affect the effectiveness of the courseware. (Developer Interview,
respondent 2)
If, as the literature emphasises, the use of computer software in teaching and learning should
reinforce students‟ individual learning process, enable students to understand principles and
181 | Interface design
concepts easily, and improve students‟ performance (Khalili & Shashaani, 1994; Khoo, 2003),
then a basic understanding of pedagogical strategies, if not curriculum knowledge among the
production team members is necessary in order for the team to produce effective interactive
courseware. Instead, expertise is fractured between the software companies and the Ministry,
and then further divided through the outsourcing process. This atomisation of the production
team means that the overall development does not proceed from an in-common or shared
understanding of curriculum, learning objectives, pedagogical principles or user needs.
5. Input on user needs from teachers as stakeholders
Some developers acknowledge the need for user-centred design and the input from
stakeholders this requires. However, the developers‟ interview transcripts indicated that, even
if they attempt a process of consultation to ascertain user needs, the courseware developers
face difficulty in obtaining permission and cooperation from schools. As one project manager
claimed:
We need the support of teachers and we actually should be talking to students. We
believe students and teachers can give us lots of good ideas about how they actually
work and how they learn and the social environments that they’re used to. However,
the permission to enter the school is hard to get. So how do we gather their real
needs? (Developer Interview, respondent5)
Another mentioned that he has tried and failed:
I have tried to make contact with the schools to get some info. Unfortunately they did
not paying any attention to our request. I think they might think we are going to be
annoying them. (Developer Interview, respondent 2)
From these recounted experiences, it has become clear that, even those developers who
understand that consulting with end-users at various stages of the design process can provide
them with a voice, and the opportunity to be constructively involved in the decision and
development process, can face obstacles to access which limit this possibility.
6.4 Teachers’ involvement in the development process
To further clarify the relationships between the various stakeholders, interview questions
were posed to school principals and teachers in order to ascertain their awareness of, and
willingness to be involved in, the development process. The interviews with six school
principals and six teachers established that few have been directly involved in the
182 | Interface design
development of interface design for the interactive courseware. The only exception was
reported by a school principal of new Smart School, who stated that:
As far as I know, just one teacher has been asked to participate in the development
process of interactive courseware. (Principal Interview, respondent 4)
However, this input was limited as the teacher explained:
I have been asked by the Ministry to be involved in the development of interactive
courseware. But I have only participated in the discussion at the early stage of
lesson mapping. (Teacher Interview, respondent 1)
The in-depth interviews with teachers established that most are very dedicated and willing to
be involved in courseware development. Four out of six teachers have the opinion that it
would be very advantageous if they could be involved in the development process in future.
Example comments show their enthusiasm for such involvement:
I would think I’m a lucky person if I am asked to be in the project because I can give
more information and can share my experience. I’m a pioneer. I think not everyone
should have the opportunity. (Teacher Interview, respondent 4)
I can see that it’s the best way to help in improving the quality of courseware … I
hope I will be able to help the developers by giving my ideas, so that the courseware
will be more interesting for my students. (Teacher Interview, respondent 5)
Others indicated willingness to contribute if the Ministry asked them to engage in the process.
As explained by one of the teachers:
I would be very happy if the Ministry asked for [my involvement]. Perhaps, I can
share some of the suggestions that I gathered from my students, such as students
would prefer more video presentations rather than still images. (Teacher Interview,
respondent 3)
Similarly, another said:
I would like to be part of the team if they asked. But so far no one has asked for that.
(Teacher Interview, respondent 2)
Teachers clearly believe that they could contribute to the improvement of the product in the
development phases, through their familiarity with the learning activities and the learning
environment and understanding of what works and is well received in the classroom. This
was illustrated by four out of six teachers, through these claims:
183 | Interface design
I think as a subject expert, I have the ability to give more. I think through discussion,
the developers or even the Ministry people could see what the real requirement is.
(Teacher Interview, respondent 2)
I think one of the best ways is group discussion among the developers and the
teachers. Sometimes the developers also want rough ideas about the subject.
(Teacher Interview, respondent 1)
As a science teacher, I need to be familiar with the subject that I teach. Teaching the
same thing every year will make me expert on the subject. So I think through that
experience, I can help the developers or even the Ministry in preparing the
interactive courseware. (Teacher Interview, respondent 5)
Some interview subjects went further; to question the expertise of the developers in providing
appropriate learning tools, as the following emphatic responses show:
I have been teaching science subjects for more than 8 years. I absolutely know what
my students really want and what things are best for my students. Do you think the
developers know more than me? ...At end of the day, I and my students are the ones
that will be using the courseware. (Teacher Interview, respondent 2)
Do you realize that they (the developers) are not involved in teaching? So how can
they know our difficulties? (Teacher Interview, respondent 1)
As a teacher, I was teaching the same subject for almost 4 years. Have the
developers been in teaching before? (Teacher Interview, respondent 4)
Through two different sources (school principals‟ and teachers‟ interviews), it is clear then
that educators are willing to be involved in the development process and, indeed, think that it
is essential. They feel that their credibility as a subject expert can be employed better, and by
and large suggest that group discussions with them would be the best approach when
undertaking systems requirements and user need analysis. Such involvement of teachers in
courseware design is clearly recommended in the literature, which acknowledges that the
teacher is one of the knowledge experts in the domain of learning and teaching (see for
example Andrewartha and Wilmot, 2001).
As key stakeholders, teachers involved in this study also stated that they are willing to be
involved in the analysis and testing phases, since they are in direct contact with students
184 | Interface design
using the courseware, and because they have a fluent knowledge of the subject material. As
one quote by a principal summarises:
I think the developers need to ask the teachers further regarding this matter. Don’t
just simply produce a tool without verifying it … teachers are the ones that are with
students everyday in class and they are familiar with what student really needs.
(School Principal Interview, respondent 4)
Such user testing is a standard part of software development, but it does not occur in this
process, even though teachers and principals are willing to be involved. The involvement of
the schools, particularly teachers, in the analysis and testing processes would have a
significant positive impact on the performance of the courseware and hence the level of
courseware usage at the schools as it would provide teachers with a channel to express their
ideas which may include worthwhile advice. However, as mentioned previously, the majority
of courseware developers interviewed are not concerned with focusing on the needs of the
teachers and students through user needs analyses and testing because of the time and cost of
doing so. One of the courseware developers summed this up as follows:
… If you conduct a needs analysis with the user, it will take more time. It is not easy
to get permission from the school principal to enter their school. It will involve more
additional work and will take you several months to get permission even though they
are in the same ministry. (School Principal Interview, respondent 2)
It appears then that the involvement of the stakeholders in the courseware development–
either within user needs input or evaluation, is a process that the teachers believe is essential
but the developers believe is not possible, if they believe it is even necessary.
6.5 Discussions and key findings
Through an exploration of the development process and the triangulation of sources,
including a contextual document analysis of the secondary sources found in international
literature, and primary sources including the Malaysian government guidelines and
interviews with developers, teachers and school principals, four main themes have emerged
in relation to the development process. They are the disjuncture between the current
development process in Malaysia compared to other well established current development
models; the extent and areas of the expertise of the developers; the lack of input from end
185 | Interface design
users; and the currently fractured relationship among key stakeholders (the developers,
Ministry and end-users including teachers and school principals).
6.5.1 Identifiable issues with the current interface design production and
software development process and the skills of developers.
Broadly, the lifecycle of the development process for interactive courseware in Malaysia
closely follows the standard phases of the instructional design system, which include analysis,
planning, design, development, implementation and evaluation. As discussed in the literature
and summarised in Section 6.2 of this chapter, this life-cycle can be carried out in various
ways such as those described in the linear (waterfall), iterative, or spiral models. The results
of this study show that the process currently practised in Malaysia follows linear steps similar
to the waterfall model, and does not involve substantial iterative phases. There are two stages
that are executed through an iterative cycle in practice (the development stage and evaluation
stage). Looping back and forth between the development stage and evaluation stage is carried
out to perfect the interactive courseware. However, due to the pressures of time and limited
budget, and the Ministry‟s exercise of sole authority on decision-making around aspects such
as the interface design production, most courseware developers commonly practise this
iterative phase for a short time and conduct it in-house, to ensure technical robustness and
compliance with the guidelines. Therefore the process is, by and large, linear in the way of
the traditional waterfall model, which has been roundly criticised in the literature.
As established in the literature, the iterative, spiral and ADDIE models include initial user
needs analysis with input from stakeholders, including end-users, as well as repetitive
iterative cycles in order to refine the product through communication between the developers
and end-users. In essence, this process presents the developers with insights into the users‟
needs, goals, practices and expectations, as well as the opportunity to elicit objective
feedback on the appropriateness of the solution from users. However, the results of this study
show that none of the courseware developers who participated in this study undertake a user
needs analysis or initiate feedback from users on the product design and use. Instead, the
designers in the development team simply use their previous knowledge and experience to
devise and execute a design solution.
186 | Interface design
It could perhaps be concluded from this that the courseware developers are more focused on
profit considerations than producing an effective product with interface design that
accommodates users‟ needs. However, various factors have been put forward by the
developers. The most common reasons for lack of consultation is that they are familiar with
the project and the needs of the Ministry, that they are given limited time to complete the
scope of the project (that is, the cost and time constraints imposed by the Ministry on the
developers preclude a consultation process which would be time-consuming), and that access
to end-users is difficult. Moreover, what has also become evident through the interviews is
that the courseware developers think that their primary objective is to meet the Ministry‟s
requirements and specifications, and that they do not have the agency to, or responsibility for,
understanding the users‟ requirements. It is understandable that they assume that this is the
Ministry‟s obligation, if the guidelines are presented as comprehensive and binding.
Another phenomenon identified from the interviews is the lack of pedagogical knowledge
and understanding of interactive learning concepts among the courseware developers. This is
due to the designers in the development team having no experience of, or training in, teaching.
However, the courseware developers do not feel an obligation to contribute pedagogical
knowledge to the process of interface design production because the content expert in the
Ministry team provides instructions and presumably contributes to the guidelines. However
this expert does not work with the development team through the process and is
geographically and structurally dislocated from the development team.
The contribution of expertise from different fields is particularly important when developing
content for educational courseware. System engineers, programmers, graphic designers,
writers, and editors must integrate educational material. While curriculum and content might
be provided by an educational specialist, also required is expertise in developing effective
interfaces for students‟ and teachers‟ needs. That is, the development teams in Malaysia not
only need a content expert actively involved in the design, but also require an instructional
designer who has an understanding of learning models/theories for the effective development
of interaction and interface design that engages students with content and facilitates effective
testing and feedback. Accordingly, the active involvement of a content expert and an
instructional expert to the development team not only helps identification of requirements,
but also contributes to more effective performance of the courseware. The dislocation of the
content expert and instructional designer from the development teams may be attributed as a
187 | Interface design
potential source of conflict and communication issues between the Ministry and courseware
developers, but it is also likely to be a key reason for issues arising in the quality of the
courseware.
Given these constraints, the most pragmatic route for developers in Malaysia to take is to
simply convert existing printed learning modules into a digital version. It has been well
established in the global literature that such a practice affects the effectiveness of the
courseware in use. It is therefore a significant problem in the software development system in
Malaysia, and can be identified as a factor that strongly contributes to the problems in the
interface design, as well as more general issues with the courseware, which impact on its
effectivity and uptake.
6.5.2 Lack of involvement of end-users as key stakeholders
The literature establishes that interface design is the main factor in ensuring that interactive
courseware is able to cater to the end-users‟ needs (Nielsen, 2000; Norman & Spohrer, 1996).
Interface design that been developed without a deep knowledge of the intended users may
therefore not be useful or even usable. The literature is clear that it is very important for
developers to have an understanding of the users in order to develop effective software that
meets the requirements of the user and will be used frequently and meaningfully (Galitz,
2002). Therefore, the importance of user involvement in the software development process
has been well established as a key factor in the success of development (Olsson, 2004) and
uptake of courseware (Kujala, 2003). In the last few decades, the concept of user centred
design (Norman, 2002) has been adapted into a learner-centred approach, which has been
introduced in models such as the ADDIE models to overcome the absence of end-user
involvement that was a problem with the waterfall model. Facilitating the involvement of
end-users at an early stage, throughout the design process and in reviewing and testing, is
encouraged because it not only impacts on the potential that the software will meet their
needs, but also ensures that they have a stake in the outcome, which also helps to ensure the
uptake of material.
However, in the current practice of courseware development in Malaysia, the end-users are
understood to be passive consumers in the process, and are not involved in the analysis,
design or testing stages. Establishing systems, interaction and content requirements, as well
188 | Interface design
as product testing, generally comprises the minimum recommended input by end-user
stakeholders. They therefore currently constitute the most problematic phases in the design
process in Malaysia. This might be attributed to the authority of decision-making in the
design process, as the courseware developers have stated they had no decision-making rights
on this issue, and cannot access the end-users. Nonetheless, some of the courseware
developers also tend to overlook the importance of user needs and the significance of user
involvement.
Given the well-established understanding in the literature, as well as the clear indication
provided by this study, of the importance of the role of user involvement in developing
suitable interfaces, it is therefore recommended that the Ministry and the developers in
Malaysia should consider the benefits of user input within each iterative cycle. That is, this
study provides a foundation for recommending the importance of involving teachers in
making decisions about design solutions, and well as evaluating the courseware at various
phases. It should be noted that this is a more time-consuming process than the current
practices, and therefore makes the development process more costly. However, it would
provide a stronger foundation for the design of the courseware and would also allow the
developers to make corrections on the potential product and ensure the delivery of an end
product that is more effective, engaging and more frequently used in the classroom.
6.5.3 The current relationships between main stakeholders
This research project has also uncovered substantial issues with the current relationship
between the main stakeholders in the courseware, i.e. the Malaysian Ministry of Education,
the courseware developers, and the school principals and teachers. The literature on the
courseware development process is primarily focused on how interactive courseware should
work as a learning material for end-users (Shneiderman, 1998; Galitz, 1997) but a study by
Iivari (2004) explains that effective communication between the stakeholders is essential in
order to ensure the quality of the end product because each stakeholder has their own
experience, discipline and contextual expertise, and responsibilities. Designing interfaces, in
particular, is not a simple task in the development process but it is arguably the most
important part of the whole development system. If interface design fails to communicate
clearly to users, they may end up frustrated. Very often however, courseware developers,
189 | Interface design
funding stakeholders and end-users have different perspectives on interface design, which
need to be reconciled.
In the Malaysian context, it is particularly important for all stakeholders to work together and
collaborate actively in all activities in the development process because the level of
knowledge and skills of the stakeholders is very different. For example, as discussed above,
since the developers in Malaysia lack pedagogical skills, content knowledge and an intimate
understanding of students as users, it is very important that they should directly involve
teachers in focus groups, or other information gathering processes in order to understand how
they operate in the classroom, and what their needs and teaching goals are, beyond the
presentation of the subject content of the knowledge domain. Users (particular teachers in this
context) should be experts on courseware use, their subject domain, and their needs, as well
as that of the students, and developers should be experts on development including
programming, information architecture and interaction and interface design in general. These
two domains of expertise are complementary and both are required for the production of a
successful product and need to be integrated effectively.
However, the investigation of the current development process through the analysis of the
government guidelines and interviews with developers and teachers in Malaysia, indicates
that all of the main stakeholders are not meaningfully engaged with each other because of the
clearly differentiated roles they play. The courseware developers are responsible for most
stages in the development process, while the Ministry has power over decision making, thus
playing the most important role in ensuring the effectiveness of the courseware design. The
students and teachers meanwhile play no role at all prior to using the interactive courseware.
Therefore, the roles of stakeholders are completely fragmented, and in the current practice of
software development in Malaysia, communication between teachers, courseware developers
and the Ministry often breaks down.
This is illustrated by the way in which the communication between courseware developers
and end-users is derailed. Since the requirements process and access to schools is controlled
by the Ministry team, the designers in the development team have no first-hand contact with
the potential users. And, while the school principals and teachers are highly conscious of the
quality of the courseware and the interface design in particular, because it influences the level
of effectiveness of the courseware used at their schools, courseware developers are not
190 | Interface design
thinking in terms of how to present the content to end-users in a way that will help them learn
most effectively, as much as they are focused on finishing the development process within
the allocated time and to the specific Ministry requirements. This disjunction is not only a
major failing in the process, but is also evident in the outcome: the usage and effectiveness of
the interactive courseware at the schools.
Therefore, while it is recommended that the important principles of user-centred design and
target group involvement in the development process should be applied to any future
development of Smart School Project courseware in Malaysia, in general the relationship
between stakeholders must be addressed with clear processes for communication and
stakeholder co-operation. Teachers and principals input should be communicated directly to
the developers, as well as to the instructional designers and content experts in the Ministry,
allowing the schools to provide knowledge and the information regarding their needs to the
developers. The Ministry should therefore provide leadership by not only providing oversight
and expertise on the government‟s goals for education and learning, as well as broader
conventions on world-wide best practice on courseware design and pedagogical approaches
to e-learning, they should also facilitate this communication process. That is, to create good
communication between the stakeholders, two basic requirements are needed. Firstly, all
stakeholders must have an opportunity to communicate effectively and to understand the
problems, needs and goals of the other stakeholders and secondly, all involved need to
respect and recognise the expertise of the other stakeholders. However, first the
communication channels need to be opened.
6.6 Conclusion
This chapter has set out to provide answers to Research Question 3: How is the interface
design of the courseware developed and has this contributed to the quality of the interface
design? To answer this question, the current practices of interface design and the
development process in Malaysia have been explored through the different perspectives of
the main stakeholders (the courseware developers, the Ministry and end-users). This
investigation has helped to ascertain reasons for issues in the courseware that have led to low
uptake and issues with the interface design that have been identified by previous researchers.
In summary, the findings from the different data sets (contextual document analysis and
interviews with the courseware developers, school principals and teachers) have revealed that
191 | Interface design
current production of interface design and software development processes in Malaysia may
be responsible for the issues in the interface and courseware more broadly.
Primarily, the development process largely ignores the importance of user involvement and
prototyping methods as recommended in the international literature. A number of reasons
have been identified. Firstly, the Ministry policy on design and the existing Malaysian
guidelines provide no comprehensive explanation about, or requirement to conduct, user need
analyses and product testing. Secondly, the limited time and budgets allocated by the
Ministry were identified as a sub-theme, and it was argued by the informants that these
constraints require the courseware developers to concentrate solely on Ministry requirements
rather than contextually specific end-user needs, which are time-consuming to acquire. And,
importantly, relationships have not been established or encouraged among the main
stakeholders (developers, the Ministry and schools), so meaningful contact between them
does not occur.
Out of these primary issues, a number of significant factors arise. Because sole authority for
decision-making is held by the Ministry, developers respond to the letter of the guidelines
they are provided with, to the exclusion of other types of research or analysis. And, because
there is limited pedagogical knowledge within the development team, a misunderstanding
among the courseware developers about the concept of interactive learning arises, which
may, in turn, lead to the reductive strategy of simply converting the printed learning modules
to an electronic format. In addition, because of limited communication between the
stakeholders, each function within their tightly designated roles, so sharing and integration of
specialist expertise does not occur. For example, courseware developers conduct their
product testing within their own team in response to the Ministry requirements, without
involving the teachers and students. And a deficit of skills in the development teams leads to
the outsourcing of major interface design components, which further fragments the design
process and design roles.
These shortfalls in the design and development process of the interactive courseware largely
align with the findings of studies in other contexts. As outlined in the literature, there are four
main factors that influence the production of interface design. They are the user needs and
requirements analysis, functionality, decision-making and creativity (Eberts & Brock, 1988;
Kulik & Kulik, 1991). This research study has revealed problems within the courseware
192 | Interface design
development process that may influence all of these factors. Firstly, the current lack of user
involvement delimits the user needs analysis and requirements. Secondly, a lack of awareness
of interface design and pedagogical theory and strategies among the designers can be related
to the effectivity of the interface design and the functionality of the courseware in general.
Thirdly, the centralisation of decision-making in the Ministry limits the capacity of
developers and teachers to understand each other‟s need. And finally, the limitation and
requirement specificities in the guidelines limit creativity and the potential for innovation.
From this discussion, the question about how the interface design of the existing interactive
science courseware is developed and whether this has contributed to the quality of the
interface design is answered. In summary, all of these shortcomings in the development
process contribute to the quality and performance of the existing interactive courseware for
the Smart School Project. Therefore, these factors must be considered by the Ministry and by
courseware developers prior to future development. In the following chapter, a new
framework for the software development process that could be suitable for Malaysian context
will be proposed.
193 | Interface design
7. Proposed framework for the Malaysian software
development process and extension of the current
guidelines
7.1 Introduction
Based on an analysis of current development processes in Malaysia, the previous chapter
identified a number of issues and problems arising from the current development process in
Malaysia and the impact they have on the interactive courseware of the Smart School Project.
In particular, the developers in Malaysia are ignoring the importance of user involvement in
the development process, particularly in testing the product. The literature contains a store of
proposed solutions based on user participation and engagement in software development.
Accordingly, in this chapter, a new framework is proposed to guide the development process,
including some potential methodologies that address the relationships between the key
stakeholders and facilitate the important process of end-user involvement in the development
process. In addition, the guidelines for the organization of a more effective software
development process in Malaysia are extended in this chapter, particularly in relation to
interface design.
7.2 Proposed framework for the Malaysian software development
process
In proposing a framework for the Malaysian software development process here, the aim is
not to simply put forward another model for software development. Rather, it is intended to
counter the weak relationships that currently exist between the main stakeholders and the lack
of user involvement in the design and evaluation process. Thus this proposal first involves
including teacher‟s involvement with a view to acknowledging and benefiting from their
expertise in the domain of classroom teaching, pedagogy in general and understanding of
interactive learning concepts, and incorporating this knowledge into the design considerations.
The best way to ensure that end-user needs are taken into account in the software
194 | Interface design
development process is to continuously incorporate their involvement in the development
process.
In proposing a new framework, it is therefore important to first consider the various models
that incorporate user input. There are several approaches to user involvement established in
the literature. For instance, users can be involved at the early stages of the process when the
requirements are determined. At this level, they are commonly involved in providing insights
into their specific needs, and consequently contributing to the user needs analysis. The
second type of user involvement is during the prototyping phase, in which the user is
involved in testing low fidelity and high fidelity prototype versions of the interaction and
interface design. At this level, users might be observed interacting with the prototype or may
complete a survey about the various features to provide their feedback and offer critique and
suggestions to the designers. This type of feedback is incorporated into the iterative model
discussed in the previous chapter, and it contributes to redesign and improvements in the next
iteration.
Another phase of user involvement is after the production of the system. Here, users interact
with a Beta version of the actual product and give their opinions and report any problems
they encounter. Revisions at this stage are then included in a revised version of product. At
this point, however, only minor changes are possible rather than structural or major interface
design changes, as these underpin the entire application.
Beyond these bracketed forms of user input, approaches to extended user involvement are
available. They include user-centred design (UCD), participatory design (PD) and, most
recently, co-design. These three approaches are driven by the impetus of empowering
stakeholders in the design process and involve more intensive collaboration between
designers and other stakeholders. In short, the end users who will use the outcome contribute
to the design process, with the designer acting as a facilitator of this contribution. As shown
in Figure 7.1 these models were developed some years ago but they have recently gained
ground in terms of popularity and implementation.
195 | Interface design
Figure 7.1: The shift in the development process from technology oriented approaches to
user involvement
Each of these approaches has its own strengths, which are worth considering in detail as
explained below:
1. User centred Design
User-centred design involves the input of users throughout the design process (Miyata &
Norman, 1986). It not only focuses on understanding the user of the software being
developed, but also requires an understanding of the tasks that the users will perform with the
software and the environment (organisational, social, and physical) in which they will use the
software. Therefore, the main characteristic of a user-centred design approach is to focus on
the needs of the users. In short, there are four key principles of user-centred design: active
involvement of users, appropriate allocation of functions between users and systems,
multidisciplinary design teams, and iterative development of design solutions. That is, the
product is incrementally designed and evaluated through reference to users to ensure it meets
their needs. This differs markedly from the waterfall model.
2000s >
<1970s
Technology oriented
User oriented
Involvement of end-user at the
beginning and throughout the
process
*Waterfall Model Royce, 1970
User-centred design, 1974
Participatory design, 1970
Co-design, 2005
Iterative Model Boehm, 1985
1980s
Spiral Model Boehm, 1986
METHODOLOGIES
The shift of development process internationally
Involvement of end-user at
the end process via product
testing
*Currently practised in Malaysia
1990s
The ADDIE model Smith & Ragan, 1998
196 | Interface design
The rationale for user-centred design is that the continuous iterative inclusion of end-user
information is the best way to create products that are useful and beneficial (Landauer, 1995).
A user-centred design approach then should optimise a software system‟s usability because it
is based on the self-articulated needs and feedback of end-users. Because it takes the user‟s
expertise into account, it reduces the distance between the user and the software (what Miyata
& Norman (1986) call the conceptual “gulf of execution”).
The main attribute of interactive courseware is the goal of helping the user to learn topics that
they are not already familiar with. In this case, ease-of-use cannot be the only concern for the
designer. Users also must be supported in new processes and in merging new content and
information with pre-existing knowledge. In addition, the Malaysian teaching and learning
context is unique, and it is necessary to take the unique contextual needs of the users into
account; and user-centred design is potentially beneficial in doing so.
2. Participatory Design
The participatory design approach creates an opportunity for the involvement of end-users as
both stakeholders and active collaborators. In particular, it supports the active involvement of
potential users or current users in the design and decision-making processes as members of
the design team. Therefore, participatory design is recognised as a design philosophy that
encompasses the user in the whole design cycle from the requirements analysis, to driving the
processes of a rapid iteration designing, through to product testing (Dix, Finlay, Abowd, &
Beale, 2004).
Through participatory design, the insights and expertise of the end user is deeply integrated
into the product, helping to ensure that it meets their needs. And, because users are involved
in product development in a central role through the participatory design approach, they may
feel that their ideas and suggestions were considered and valued during the process and so
feel more invested in the success of the outcomes. Therefore, this involvement can lead to a
sense of ownership over the final product and a greater willingness to adopt it.
Differences can arise between designers and end-users within such a collaborative
development process. To deal with this, participatory design is not a single method but
involves several dimensions, such as ensuring an effective relationship between users and the
developers, and other stakeholders in the design activities. Indeed, Blomberg and Henderson
197 | Interface design
(1990) promote participatory design as a way to overcome a lack of communication between
developers and end-users, and advise that this design process can mediate the interests arising
from the different perspectives of stakeholders. Thus, this method is highly recommended for
the future development of interface design for interactive courseware in Malaysia for
enhancing better relationships.
3. Co-Design
As the development of the Malaysian Smart School Project’s courseware involves many
stakeholders, a co-design process provides another suitable approach to design and
development. It offers an opportunity for multidisciplinary stakeholders to be involved in the
development process. As defined by Fuad-Luke (2007), co-design embraces participatory
design and other design approaches to encourage active participation of various stakeholders.
Like Participatory Design (PD), it entitles the user to have a voice in determining how the
product is designed and, in doing so, the design outcomes are potentially improved and are
more effective.
Because co-design is mindful of ways of collaborating with the different stakeholders, and
establishes ways in which different kinds of related knowledge and expertise can be brought
together, it aims to foster broad consensus. If implemented in the software development
process in Malaysia, it could potentially improve the relationship problems that occur
between the stakeholders, and ensure that stakeholders‟ interests are taken into account in the
design and development process. Thus, co-design would allow the designers in the
development team and Ministry staff to proceed without having to guess whether the
interactive courseware might be rejected by the teachers and students as end-users.
These three methodologies could be considered by the Malaysian Ministry of Education.
Each would involve inviting teachers, and perhaps students, to participate in the software
development process as active participants. In their full form at least, these approaches are a
radical departure from the linear and closed waterfall model that most closely approximates
the development of interactive courseware in Malaysia.
It is important to note however, that involving users extensively throughout the design and
development process from the initial stage through to testing, and involving them as co-
designers, has time implications and increased cost must be considered against the benefits of
198 | Interface design
improved performance and uptake. Taking cost implications into account, a middle ground
might be adopted through a new model that utilizes the strengths of the waterfall, iterative,
spiral and ADDIE models established in the previous chapter and combine them with the user
oriented approaches discussed here. This new proposed framework is illustrated in Figure 7.2.
Figure 7.2: A new proposed framework for the software development process in Malaysia
This model provides a life cycle structure that, like established models, focuses on five main
phases in the software development process. As illustrated in the figure however, the iterative
and linear approaches are combined. The repeated iteration approaches were adopted from
the spiral and iterative model and from the ADDIE model, which places feedback in the
centre of the process so that it becomes an integral and integrated step. In particular,
collaborative approaches to iterative design are suggested for the phases of design,
2
3
5
4
Requirement and
Planning
Scope of
requirement,
cost, the
schedule and
tasks to be
accomplished.
Analysis
Define students’ and teachers’ needs and
determine an appropriate medium delivery
through consultation with all stakeholders
including end users.
Delivery and
Implementation Final product
installation and
implementation at
school
Get feedback from
teachers and students
(end-users) and
obtain approval from
the Ministry.
Develop storyboard,
low fidelity
prototype.
Design
Development
and Testing
1
Evaluation alpha
version prototype
(Formative)
Create media, perfect
courseware and
conduct product testing
with end-users and the
Ministry
Evaluation beta
version prototype
(Summative)
Feedback
6
199 | Interface design
development and evaluation to cement relationships between the three key stakeholders in the
current software development process (the Ministry, courseware developers and teachers) and
embrace and integrate their many skills, insights and areas of expertise into the development
process.
The major modifications occur in three phases that are identified in the literature as crucial
points of the software development process, namely the analysis phase (Stage 2) a feedback
phase (Stage 4) which is incorporated into the alpha testing after the design phase (Stage 3)
and a feedback phase incorporated into beta testing after the development phases (Stage 5),
leading back to the design phase and the beginning of a repeat cycle.
Similar to previous models, this proposed framework begins with requirements and planning.
In this phase, it suggested that developers should set out to gain an understanding of the
project scope, requirements, costings and schedule tasks and milestones that need to be
accomplished. However, the developers and the Ministry would also need to involve users in
an additional analysis stage because simply understanding the scope, cost, and schedule of
tasks is not enough to determine the actual needs of students and teachers. While the current
software development processes being practiced in Malaysia includes a general analysis of
the tasks given in the Ministry guidelines, this new proposed framework sees this phase
include determining students‟ and teachers‟ needs, the contexts of use, and appropriate
delivery mediums for the purposes and contexts of use. This standard step occurs in almost
all established models and is essential due to the fact that the courseware is developed for
particular users. It has been proven to lead to a dramatic increase in the quality of product
when applied.
The third phase in which changes are proposed is the design phase. The key objective of the
design stage is to construct a storyboard and prototype based on the available information and
requirements provided by the Ministry and the evaluation of user needs. The use of
prototyping tools here is a valuable way of building early designs and demonstrations of
interfaces, because it offers an opportunity to purposefully select aspects of the interface
design that would benefit from early feedback before going on to develop the entire
application. Such prototyping provides a particularly effective means of communication
between the users and the developer. The basic idea is to guage the appropriateness of the
design components suggested in the prototype to the audience, to ensure that elements
200 | Interface design
communicate clearly, are used in a proper sequence, are consistent, and so on. As suggested
in the ADDIE model, the evaluation at this stage is formative, and should be conducted with
different levels of users in the target group to ensure flexibility. If the user is not satisfied
with the prototype the developer should revise it to make it more effective, efficient,
appealing, functional and/or usable.
Once the prototype is stabilised (which may take multiple redesign phases after feedback or
evaluation reports on low fidelity paper prototypes through to high fidelity prototypes) the
process can proceed to the development stage. Then the beta version of the prototype should
go through summative evaluation. As defined in the ADDIE model, the purpose of this more
formal evaluation process is to guage how well intended users succeed with both interaction
and the specific learning materials, and to ascertain whether the interface design is effective
in supporting users to achieve these goals.
From the surveys and interviews, it became clear that, in the current system, the involvement
of the user does not occur. However, in the early stages, user involvement is important to
provide information regarding their knowledge, skills and working culture. Thus, this
proposed framework suggests user input into the analysis phase. In addition continuous
evaluation and revision in the design and development stages by conducting product testing
with teachers, students and Ministry officials (rather than simply in-house testing by
developers and Ministry evaluations) is recommended to help to ensure that the application
will achieve its pedagogical and cultural goals, that appropriate interface design components
preferred by the students and teachers are used, that quality and fit to purpose will be assured,
and that the potential for low uptake and use of interactive courseware will be reduced.
The advantages of this proposed model, in which user involvement is emphasized at various
stages of the process, will provide the courseware developers with two opportunities. Firstly,
it will allow them to identify the real needs of the teachers and students as end-users and this
will allow them to flesh out an appropriate interpretation of, and solution for, the Ministry
requirements. Moreover, the involvement of users in user needs analyses, feedback and
iterative loops suggested here, to complement the evaluations of the ministry and in-house
evaluations, will allow a sense of incremental input and ownership by all of the key
stakeholders, which will in turn help to ensure the success of the product in terms of uptake,
201 | Interface design
and continued effective use. This is surely the shared objective of the Malaysian Ministry of
Education, the developers and the teachers.
7.3 Extended guidelines for the design and production
In addition to this proposed framework for development, another outcome of this evaluation
process is a set of extended guidelines for the design of interactive science courseware for the
Malaysian Smart School Project. As established in the literature review, to be effective,
guidelines are broad principles that must be tailored and in place before the development
process begins and they should be offered to the designer as a resource, rather than imposed
as a standard design contract (Smith, 1986). In themselves, guidelines cannot assure an
effective and appropriate design, for a variety of reasons–not least of which is that they are
not context specific and therefore cannot replace user insights into their needs in a given
context. That is, applying guidelines will not necessarily save the design process, but can help
developers to create a more usable product through the provision of broad principles.
As has been argued throughout this thesis, best practice interface design requires the
implementation of well thought out and understandable guidelines in addition to user input.
However, in Malaysia developers currently fail to fully apply the Ministry guidelines due to
limited time and cost, and decision-making policies, and instead largely depend on their own
knowledge and experience.
Nonetheless, this study proposes several additional basic guidelines to extend the existing
Malaysian government guidelines provided to developers for the design of future interactive
courseware. They are as follows:
1. Ascertain a comprehensive understanding of the end-users‟ needs through direct contact
with teachers and involve teachers as team members and stakeholders in the development
process.
The first additional guideline arises from the importance of involving end-users in the
development process in order to understand their needs. In line with this, it is important that
courseware developers in Malaysia gain a comprehensive understanding of the end-users‟
needs through direct contact with teachers (and, ideally, students). This involves conducting a
202 | Interface design
user needs analysis at the beginning of the development process, and might also provide the
opportunity for input into the design process to ensure that the product effectively meets their
needs.
This extended guideline is intended to facilitate stakeholders‟ relationships which are
currently lacking. The Ministry must support teachers to be involved as an integral part of the
production team. This is because teachers can contribute clear guidance on learning
objectives, and help the designers in the development team to optimise solutions for the
integration of content, meaningful interaction and effective and appropriate interface design.
However, it should be understood that the courseware developers should retain the authority
to modify and make amendments or modifications to the design to meet contextual user needs.
This recommendation extends instructional requirements outlined by the Ministry, to further
ensure the appropriateness of the design to the contexts in which it will be deployed, and to
those who will use it, but also to ensure that the interactive courseware can be used by the
end-user effectively.
2. Conduct product testing as many times as necessary with all stakeholders.
The second additional guideline is that developers should undertake testing of products with
teachers and the Ministry staff iteratively rather than simply involving their own team
members in testing at the end of the development process. Most importantly, product testing
should be conducted as much as possible, from multiple perspectives, and this might involve
not only teachers but also representative students because they are also end-users. And testing
should be undertaken on low and high fidelity versions of prototypes as well the final product,
to ensure the opportunity for feedback from the students and teachers to be incorporated
before the point when only minor, superficial amendments can be made.
The Ministry must therefore give authority to courseware developers to conduct product
testing and supervise them in conducting product testing with teachers/students.
3. Create meaningful relationships between interface design components.
In consideration of the concerns expressed by teachers and students in the fieldwork, a
further suggested extension of the guidelines is that courseware developers should create
203 | Interface design
meaningful relationships in the interface design, particularly between graphic images, text,
animations, and videos components. In developing each of these components, designers must
carefully consider the needs of teachers and students but also have a clear understanding of
how each interface design components are associated with each other from the user‟s
perspective. For this reason, developers should put themselves in the users‟ place to
determine if the interface organization makes sense, but should also seek feedback from them.
4. Attain a fundamental understanding of interface design
The literature establishes that interface design is the filter of information, which controls the
extent to which users can access information and what they can do with the content.
Therefore, poor interface design adversely affects users' understanding and interaction with
the courseware (Balinsky, 2006; Thurmond, Wambach and Conners, 2002). Consequently, it
is imperative that designers gain a working understanding of interface design and how to
make it function effectively (Johnson, 1997) in terms of interactivity, communication, use of
multimedia and adaptability. The requirement that developers in Malaysia–particularly their
designers–have a fundamental understanding of the roles and functions of interface design is
essential.
5. Attain a fundamental understanding of the concepts of interactive learning
This requirement is aligned with the basic concepts and principles that are addressed by
instructional design strategies. Whether developers have this knowledge largely determines
whether the courseware facilitates learning objectives or not. Understanding of this concept
will help to ensure that the courseware that is designed for students will facilitate learning in
the context of computer-based learning. This requirement is in addition to the input of
teachers, not instead of it, and it will help to support a common ground for collaboration.
7.4 Conclusion
In response to prior studies, evaluations conducted by the Ministry of Education, the concerns
of stakeholders, and weaknesses in the current development process that have been identified
in this research study, this chapter has proposed a new framework for the software
development process, and additional guidelines for interactive courseware design production
in Malaysia. A rationale for, and explanation of, the proposed framework has been presented.
In essence, it highlights the importance of end-user involvement in the software development
204 | Interface design
process, which is overlooked at present. Significantly, the proposed framework helps to
support the development of relationships between all stakeholders and outlines the activities
that should be undertaken by each of them.
This chapter has also suggested additional guidelines for interface design and courseware
production that have arisen out of the research, and can be included in a future review of the
current guidelines by the Ministry. In summary, this includes guidelines that promote user
involvement, and ensure that developers understand the specific interface design principles,
contexts and requirements for educational software, which is different to other types of
interactive software.
This chapter thereby answers Research Question Four, which is: Drawing on the analyses of
international literature, the Malaysian government guidelines, the existing interactive Science
courseware, and end-users‟ observed and reported experiences within this research study; are
there any aspects of the design process in the current framework that can be changed to
benefit stakeholders and perspectives? And, what principles, characteristics and development
guidelines can be recommended for future interactive Science courseware for Malaysia‟s
educational context?
205 | Interface design
8. Conclusion and Recommendations for Future
Work
8.1 Introduction
As the final chapter of this thesis, this chapter revisits the journey of this study and
summarises its conclusions. It reviews the aims and objectives of the research and shows how
the goals planned at the beginning of the research project have been fulfilled, while many
interesting and unexpected findings have also emerged. It also brings together the range of
recommendations that have emerged as outcomes of the research project.
This chapter is divided into four sections. First, it provides a summary of the key research
findings and a discussion on how these findings relate to the research question established at
the beginning of this thesis (Section 8.2). Then it proceeds to outline the significance of the
findings with respect to practice and theory, and considers ways in which each aspect of the
key findings contributes to the advancement and application of new knowledge (Section 8.3).
Following that, possible directions for future research into courseware development and
interface design are presented (Section 8.4). In the final section of the chapter, the
conclusions that have been drawn from the research project are summarised (Section 8.5).
8.2 Summary of research findings
Taking interactive science courseware as a sample study, this research project has critically
investigated the nature, extent and reasons for lower than anticipated uptake and use of the
interactive courseware in the Malaysian Smart School Project that has previously been
reported. It has focused on the interface design of the courseware because previous
researchers have attributed issues with the courseware to it. An analysis has been carried out
by comparing the design principles evident in the interactive courseware to those
recommended in the literature and the Ministry guidelines; by observing how the interface
design is perceived by students and teachers, and how it affects users‟ interaction with the
courseware in the classroom and impacts on their learning experiences.
206 | Interface design
Important findings of this research project include verification that the current level of
courseware uptake at schools is lower than anticipated, and that the relationship between the
issues associated with the interface design and the level of courseware usage at schools has
been confirmed. The school principals and teachers, who were interviewed as part of the data
collection, strongly agreed that the quality of interface design in interactive courseware and
its perceived pedagogical effectiveness, along with computing facilities and technical support,
have significantly contributed to the level of use of the courseware in the classroom.
Fieldwork, including classroom observations and focus group discussions have further
established that, while students and teachers appreciate the opportunity to adopt the
interactive courseware, the level of courseware usage is affected by the quality of interface
design and whether the courseware meets teachers‟ and students‟ needs. This study therefore
contributes to the outcomes of previous studies on the implementation of the interactive
courseware in the Malaysian Smart School Project by supporting their conclusions that
interface design is a factor, but it also extends them by identifying both the specific issues in
the interface design, as well as additional factors.
It also extends previous studies by investigating how these issues have arisen through
empirical analysis of the development process that is practised by courseware developers in
Malaysia. By comparing recommended models and the phases and sequencing outlined in the
international literature with the guidelines provided by the Malaysian Ministry of Education,
and the information provided by developers in interviews, specific issues associated with the
current development process in Malaysia have been identified. In particular, it has been
concluded that the developers do not understand, and so take little account of, the end-users‟
needs, and this gives rise to issues in the courseware outcomes. While stakeholder
participation and need is strongly recommended in the international literature in order to
make a positive impact on the quality of a design outcome, and is therefore at the core of
numerous established design methodologies, in Malaysia there are a number of factors that
contribute to this oversight. These include the Ministry policy of centralising design decisions
and approvals within the Ministry; a lack of understanding of the role of interface design as
well as the benefits of end-user involvement in the design and evaluation process by the
development teams; and the time and costs required for focus groups, interviews and surveys
of representative end-users. This lack of involvement of students and teachers as end-users
impacts negatively on the rate of interactive courseware uptake in schools, due to resulting
perceptions of appropriateness of the content, quality of the interface design, and
207 | Interface design
pedagogical effectivity. In short, a key finding of this research is that the interface design
quality and interactivity of the courseware is affected by the lack of user involvement in the
current development process, which leads to deficiencies in usability, consistency, flexibility
and appeal of the courseware to the target group, and this, in turn, has an impact on the extent
of uptake and use of the courseware in schools.
This research project has also identified issues relating to relationships between the key
stakeholders in the courseware during the development process. It was concluded that the
various stakeholders are not closely integrated in the current process because of the different
roles that they play, which are tightly delegated to specific teams and expertise, and this leads
to a fracturing of responsibilities and the development process in general. It also leads to a
lack of understanding of other stakeholders‟ needs. Limited time allocation and budgets for
the project were identified as sub-factors associated with this issue. This forms another key
finding of the research, but it should be noted that this is not only an issue in Malaysia but has
also been identified in previous international studies.
In response to these concerns, several potential methods of user involvement have been
identified including participatory design, user-centred design and co-design, and a modified
framework for the software development process has been proposed that addresses the
collective needs of stakeholders (the Ministry, the courseware developers and the end-users).
In addition, principles that might be included in an expanded set of guidelines for provision to
developers by the Ministry have been proposed. While these include guidelines for the
development process, they also respond to a primary objective of this research project, which
has been to establish a set of interface design principles for effective interactive courseware.
Through a triangulation of data derived from a range of methods, this study has found that the
characteristics required by the Malaysian government guidelines largely map on to the
principles for effective interface design in the international literature, namely (1) consistency
of the style and elements used; (2) familiarity provided through reference to the conventions
of other software and the use of metaphors for other prior experiences, (3) flexibility of
elements and commands to accommodate different user preferences, (4) feedback on actions
that is efficient, clear and immediate and (5) aesthetics relating to the overall screen
appearance that are appropriate to the target audience, screen layout and clarity of visual
communication. In addition, the Malaysian guidelines also include the requirement to avoid
208 | Interface design
ethnic, cultural and religious bias. While it is noted that the principles and characteristics
provided in the international literature and Ministry guidelines are described differently, they
are fundamentally similar. However, only three out of the five required media components
(video, graphic images and animation) outlined in the Malaysian government guidelines were
considered to be effective from the users‟ perspective.
These outcomes have addressed the main research questions, and the aims and objectives
described at the beginning of this thesis, with particular reference to providing empirical
evidence on the extent of uptake of the courseware and the quality of the interface design of
the Smart School science courseware; identifying factors that have affected the rate of
courseware uptake at school; establishing an extended set of interface design principles
including characteristics and components to help facilitate user interaction; discovering the
current relationship between the key stakeholders involved in the software development
process; and providing an extended set of principles to guide the design and development of
future courseware for the Smart School Project that guarantee user involvement in order to
ensure that the resulting courseware is appropriate to, and accommodates, the various
stakeholders‟ needs.
8.3 Research significance
This research project would not be built on a viable foundation without the contribution of
earlier research conducted in related fields. And the results from previous research on
interactive courseware in Malaysia have provided a valuable resource to make this research
project more fruitful. However, while numerous studies have concluded that the interface
design of the current interactive courseware in Malaysia has failed to accommodate users‟
needs, interaction and overall learning experiences, limited research has so far been carried
out in Malaysia to explain in detail the exact nature of, and reasons for, these problems in the
interface design. By critically investigating the extent, nature and reasons for them, this
research project provides empirical evidence that helps to clarify the extent to which the
interface design in the existing interactive courseware for the Malaysian Smart School
Project meets the actual end-user needs, and how these outcomes have come about. These
conclusions have provided the basis for additional outcomes that include a new set of
interface design principles and extended guidelines for the development process.
209 | Interface design
8.3.1 Theoretical implications
This study also points to new knowledge through the theoretical and practical implications of
its results. Firstly, the study adds empirical evidence to support theoretically proposed
principles of interface design for Multimedia Based Learning. It increases the theoretical
understanding of the relationships between interface design quality (in terms of the look and
feel, accessibility and usability) and learning engagement. It also adds substance to the
proposition that utilizing interactive courseware in a productive way requires an
understanding of the complexities of implementation and its potential for users. And it
contributes to discussions among scholars from the field of E-learning on the gap between
educational intent and the reality of user experiences with interactive courseware.
Secondly, this research has implications for theories on software development. While there
have been many proposals for user participation in the development process, including User
Centred Design, Participatory Design and Co-design, as well as critical discussions on the use
of the Waterfall, Iterative, Spiral and ADDIE models in the development of effective
interface design and interactive courseware, this study provides empirical evidence for the
importance of user participation, particularly in product testing, and it helps to establish the
implications that arise when this does not occur and when user needs relating to their goals
practices and contexts of use are not clearly understood.
8.3.2 Practical implications
Another contribution of this study is its practical implications. Reports from the Malaysian
Ministry of Education have established that the courseware developers do not fully follow the
guidelines produced for interface design, and courseware more generally. By conducting a
comparative analysis of the Malaysian government guidelines with a content analysis sample
courseware, as well as interviews with courseware developers, insights have been gained into
the extent of compliance with the guidelines.
By analysing interface design characteristics and components in the sample of Malaysian
interactive courseware against international principles and standards, as well as against the
Ministry guidelines, this research project has helped to establish what interface design
principles, characteristics and components have been applied in the Malaysian interactive
courseware. And, by conducting observations of real users and gaining focus group feedback
210 | Interface design
from them, this research has also offered valuable information on the phenomenon of end-
users‟ interactions with the interactive courseware in the classroom, as well as perceptions of
effectiveness of the courseware in relation to interface designprinciples, characteristics and
components. These insights into the perspectives of end-users‟ (teachers and students) have
provided the basis for recommendations for an extended set of design principles for use in the
future. This has significance for the Malaysian government‟s department of education, as
well as potentially impacting on the development of more effective interactive courseware
and hence courseware usage in Malaysian schools over time.
In addition, while the findings offered in the previous studies have focused primarily on the
user‟s perspective, they do not include the perspectives of all stakeholders. By ascertaining
the developers‟ points of view as well as the users‟ perspectives, this research project
provides empirical evidence on the current relationship between the main stakeholders and its
impact on the development of interactive courseware. Moreover it helps to identify how
issues have arisen and, based on this, new guidelines and requirements have been
recommended for the development process and the facilitation of relationships between the
ministry, developers and end users. This also has significance for the courseware
development process and hence the Malaysian education system, as well as key stakeholders
including students.
.
8.4 Recommendations for future research
The results of this research project point to a range of possibilities that can be investigated
further in future research. These include:
1. Extending the scope of study
The scope of this research project has largely been limited to a study of interface design due
to time and resource constraints of a PhD project. It could be useful to explore other areas
such as experience design or interaction design in relation to the quality of courseware in
Malaysia. For instance, from an interaction design research perspective, it would be
interesting to explore how different interaction design components affect the performance
patterns of student engagement. And, focusing on learning experiences could reveal other
interesting phenomena and correlations between user satisfaction and the pedagogical
211 | Interface design
effectivity of interactive courseware. Such studies could employ the same research
methodology as used in this study to extend the investigations presented here.
2. Extended research setting and sampling
In terms of research settings and sampling, this research project was conducted in the
Malaysian context. The empirical evidence gathered in this study suggests that there may be
an urgent need to investigate other settings with a wider scope of sampling. For example,
future studies could consider students from different year levels, genders or ages, or students
with different social and cultural backgrounds. In addition, similar studies could be developed
in other countries, which may provide interesting insights into cultural differences. It should
be considered however that investigating different research setting might require additional or
different approaches to support the investigations.
3. Extended research into other subject domain
The conclusions on principles and characteristics described in this thesis are based on the
sample of interactive science courseware. However, different subjects have different
requirements and different contexts. Thus, it may be worthwhile for future research to study
interactive courseware for other subjects to determine whether the principles, characteristics
and components established in this research project would be effective and appropriate to
them.
4. In-depth study on multimedia components
Future work might also investigate individual user preferences towards multimedia
components further. For example it might investigate design characteristics of video and
animation in order to ensure the effectiveness and appropriateness of its use in interactive
science courseware and other subjects.
5. The appropriateness of additional guidelines and proposed framework
This research project has proposed additional design guidelines and a new framework for
developing the Malaysian Interactive courseware. Future research could be carried out to
investigate how these have been applied in practice and measure their impact on courseware
development and on the software produced, as well as the comparative extent of uptake. Or
future research could evaluate the benefits of the new proposed framework and additional
212 | Interface design
guidelines by conducting in-depth surveys of the developers–particularly the designers in the
developer team.
Overall, it is hoped that this research project will encourage other researchers in Malaysia to
conduct further research on the software development process and to take a holistic approach
that includes the perspectives of the courseware developers as well as end-users and is
mindful of relationships between them.
8.5 Conclusion
In the context of e-learning, interactive courseware provides new opportunities and
mechanisms for teaching and learning to students and teachers. The process of developing
interface design for interactive courseware is an important activity that requires careful
consideration throughout the development lifecycle. The feedback received from the
courseware developers, school principals, teachers and students in this research project has
contributed to the understanding of this process.
Two main lessons have been derived from this study. Firstly, the study shows that courseware
developers have not fully implemented the existing guidelines for designing interactive
courseware due to budget and time constraints, lack of skill in the development team, lack of
authority to make decisions in the design process, assumptions about end users and context of
use. Hence, the Malaysian Ministry of Education needs to take actions on reviewing the cost
requirements of the design and development process as well as the tender process, increasing
consultations with end-users, and facilitating effective relationships between stakeholders.
With the Ministry in control of the decision-making process and the technical ability sitting
with the courseware developers, both parties are actively involved in the development
process, yet teachers are not involved even though they are responsible for implementation
and this needs to be addressed, as does the integration of expertise and the facilitation of
stakeholder relationships.
Secondly, the courseware developers must become aware of the importance of ascertaining
contextually specific end-users‟ needs, because this understanding impacts on the capacity to
produce effective interface design, which in turn impacts on the level of courseware uptake as
well as learning engagement. Designers in the development team also need to gain in-depth
213 | Interface design
understanding of the role and theory of interface design (particularly the principles,
characteristics and components) as well as instructional design strategies in order to improve
the quality of the courseware.
From these lessons, it can be concluded that the main problems with the interactive
courseware of the Malaysian Smart School Project occur because the courseware developers
fail to fully implement the guidelines and to determine the needs of their clients from the very
beginning of the development process. At the same time, the Ministry of Education also
neglects to seek the views of teachers and students who are the end-users of the interactive
courseware. They also fail in to provide adequate facilities to support implementation in a
truly effective way.
The main conclusion of this study is that it is important for all stakeholders – the Ministry,
courseware developers and teachers – to be engaged as collaborators in the development
process. Close cooperation and clear communication between all stakeholders in the design
and development process is necessary because active participation among stakeholders in the
development process can significantly improved the performance of future interface design
for interactive courseware.
By providing a new direction for the development of effective interface design that includes
extended principles to ensure courseware usability, this study has extended knowledge about
the implications of designers‟ and users‟ conceptual differences, demonstrated the broad
potential of the methodological approach that has been applied, and provides a tool that
exemplifies how this new knowledge can be implemented in the design process.
By conducting a comprehensive comparative analysis, including a contextual analysis of the
international literature and the Malaysian government guidelines, a content analysis of the
existing interactive courseware, observing end-users of the interactive courseware, and
subsequently interviewing the courseware developers, this research project has extended the
scope and findings of prior studies on interface design for interactive courseware. It has also
produced additional outcomes including extended interface design principles that suit the
Malaysian context, and a new framework for establishing and supporting key relationships
and ensuring end-user involvement as stakeholders in the development and evaluation
process. This proposed framework can be used as a new foundation for the future
214 | Interface design
development of interface design for courseware and will help to reduce the gap between the
design of interactive courseware and the reality of students‟ experiences with it. Above all, it
is anticipated that this will lead to an improvement in educational courseware and,
consequently, its uptake in Malaysia.
215 | Interface design
References
Abraham, T. (2002). Evaluating the Virtual Management Information Systems (MIS)
Classroom. Journal of Information Systems Education, 13(2), 125-133.
Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for Learning: Methods and Development (3rd Edition). Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon
Akar, E., Öztürk, E., Tunçer, B., & Wiethoff, M. (2004). Evaluation of a collaborative virtual
learning environment. Education + Training, 46 (6/7), 343-352.
Andrewartha, G. & Wilmot, S. (2001). Can Multimedia Meet Tertiary Educational Needs
Better than the Conventional Lecture: A Case Study. Australian Journal of Educational
Technology, 17(1), 1-20.
Appana, S. (2008). A Review of Benefits and Limitations of Online Learning in the Context
of the Student, the Instructor and the Tenured Faculty. International Journal on E-
Learning, 7(1), 5-22.
Atan, H., Azli, N., Rahman, Z. & Idrus, R. (2002). Computers in Distance Education: Gender
Differences in Self Perceived Computer Competencies. Journal of Educational Media,
27(3), 123-135.
Atkinson, P. & Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnography and Participant Observation. In NK
Denzin and YS Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 248-261).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Azian, T. S. Abdullah (2006). Deconstructing Secondary Education: The Malaysian Smart
School Initiative. Paper Presented at the 10th SEAMEO INNOTECH International
Conference, Quezon City, Philippines. Retrieved May 9, 2010 from
http://www.seameoinnotech.org/ic06/download/Azian%20Abdullah%20-
%20full%20paper.doc
Azizah, Ya‟acob & Hanita, Azman (2005). Implementation of the Malaysian Smart School:
An Investigation of Teaching-Learning Practices and Teacher-Student Readiness. Journal
of e- Learning & Teaching, 2(2), 16-25.
Azizah, H., David, A., Peter, W., & Rohani, T. (2005). Country Report: Development of e-
learning in Malaysia. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from
http://203.183.1.152/aen/content/conference/2004/file/S2_Malaysia.pdf
Baharuddin, A., Maizah Hura, A., Shiong, K.B., Mohamad, B. A., Jamalludin, H., &
Zaidatun, T. (2006). Learning “Goal Programming” Using An Interactive Multimedia
Courseware: Design Factors and Students‟ Preferences. Malaysian Online Journal of
Instructional Technology (MOJIT), 3(1), 85-95.
Balinsky, H. (2006). Evaluating Interface Aesthetics: A Measure of Symmetry. Proceeding
Paper for the International Conference of Society for Optical Engineering, San Jose, CA,
216 | Interface design
USA. 60 (6), 52-63. Retrieved August 19, 2009 from
http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/6076/1/607608_1
Bates, A.W. (2005). Technology, E-learning and Distance Education. London: Routledge
Falmer.
Baylor, A. L. & Ritchie, D. (2002). What Factors Facilitate Teacher Skill, Teacher Morale
and Perceived Student Learning in Technology Using Classrooms? Journal on Computer
and Education, 39(4), 394-414.
Bee Theng, Lau & Chia Hua, Sim (2008). Exploring the Extent of ICT adoption Among
Secondary School Teachers in Malaysia. International Journal of Computing and ICT
Research, 2 (2), 19-36.
Ben-Ari, M. (1998). Constructivism in Computer Science Education. Proceeding Paper for
the 29th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Atlanta,
Georgia, United States. Retrieved April 5, 2010 from
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/100824/constructivism-in-computer-
science-education
Beuschel, W., Gaiser, B., & Draheim, S. (2003). Communication Needs of Online Students.
In A. K. Aggarwal, Web-based education: Learning from experience (pp. 203-222).
Hershey: Idea Group.
Beynon-Davies, P. (1993). Information Systems Development: an Introduction to
Information Systems Engineering. London: Macmillan
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does (2nd
Edition). SRHE & Open University Press, Berkshire.
Bismillah Khatoon, Abdul Kader, (2008). Malaysia‟s Experience in Training Teachers to Use
ICT. In E. Meleisea (Ed.), ICT in teacher education: Case studies from the Asia-Pacific
region (61-66). Bangkok: UNESCO Publication. Retrieved May 9, 2010 from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001567/156757e.pdf
Blomberg, J. L. & Henderson, A. (1990). Reflections on Participatory Design: Lessons from
the Trillium Experience. Proceedings Paper for CHI'90, Seattle, Washington: ACM Press,
353-359. Retrieved January 9, 2010 from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=97307
Bradler, J. (1999). Developing on-line Learning Material for Higher Education: An Overview
of Current Issues. Educational Technology Social, 2, 112-121.
Bodker, S. (1991). Creating Conditions for Participation: Conflicts and Resources in Systems
Development. Journal on Human-Computer Interaction, 11(3), 215-236.
Boehm, B. (1988). A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement. IEEE
Computer, 21(5), 61-72.
Bonk, C. J., Wisher, R. A. & Lee, J. (2003). Moderating Learner Centered e-learning:
Problems, Solutions, Benefits and Implications. In: Roberts, T., S. (Ed.), Online
Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice (pp54-85). Idea Group Inc (IGI).
217 | Interface design
Borchers, J. (2001). A Pattern Approach to Interaction Design. Wiley.
Bostock, S. (1996). Courseware Engineering: An Overview of Courseware Development
Process. Retrieved Sept 18, 2010 from
http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/cs/stephen_bostock/docs/atceng.html
Boud, D., & Prosser, M. (2001). Key Principles for High Quality Student Learning in Higher
Education Forms: A Learning Perspective. Educational Media International, 39(3 & 4),
237 – 245.
Bradler, J. (1999). Developing On-line Learning Materials for Higher Education: An
Overview of Current Issues. Educational Technology Society, (2), 112-121.
Burgess, L. A. (2003). WebCT as an E-Learning Tool: A Study of Technology Students‟
Perceptions. Journal of Technology Education, 15 (1), 6-15.
Buzhardt, J., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., & Tapia, Y. (2005). Usability Testing of the Class
Wide Peer Tutoring-Learning Management System. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 20(1), 19-29.
Cantoni, V., Cellario, M., & Porta, M. (2004). Perspectives and Challenges in e-Learning:
Towards Natural Interaction Paradigms. Journal on Visual Languages and Computing, 15
(5), 333-345.
Cavalier, J. C., & Klein, J. D. (1998). Effects of Cooperative Versus Individual Learning and
Orienting Activities during Computer-based Instruction. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 46 (1), 5-17.
Cawkell, T. (1996). The Multimedia Handbook. London: Routledge.
Chapman, Steve & McNeill, Patrick (2005). Research Methods. London: Routledge.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven
Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. CA: Jossey-Bass
Clark, T. (2001). Virtual Schools: Trends and Issues. A Report for Distance Learning
Resource Network at WestEd. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved May 17, 2008, from
http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/virtualschools.pdf
Cloke, C. & Sharif, S. (2001). Why Use Information and Communication Technology? Some
Theoretical and Practical Issues. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher
Education, 10(1-2), 7-18.
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1995). Research Methods in Education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education (5th Edition).
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Colvin, R. & Mayer, R. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction. California: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
218 | Interface design
Connell, J. & Shafer, L. (1989) Structured Rapid Prototyping: An evolutionary Approach to
Software Development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Cooper, A. & Riemann, R. M. (2003). The Essentials of Interaction Design (1st Edition).
Indianapolis: Wiley
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2002). An Accreditation and Assuring Quality
in Distance Learning. CHEA Monograph Series 1. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from
http://www.chea.org/Research/Accred-Distance-5-9-02.pdf?pubID=246
Cowger, C. D. & Menon, G. (2001). Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Research
Methods. In Thyer, B. A. (Ed.), The Handbook of Social Work Research Methods (pp
473-484). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches (2nd
Edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Croll, P. (1986). Systematic Classroom Observation, Social Research and Educational
Studies. London: Falmer Press .
Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the
Research Process. St Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Knuth, R. (1993). Textbook of the Future. In C. McKnight
(Ed.), Hypertext: A psychological perspective. London: Ellis Horwood Publications.
Davis, S. (2001). What E-Learning Can Learn from History. USDLA Journal, 15(10).
DeMarrais, Kathleen Bennett & Stephen D. Lapan (Eds.) (2004). Foundations for Research
Methods of Inquiry in Education and the Social Sciences. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Demetriadis, S., Triantafillou, E., & Pombortsis, A. (2003). A Phenomenographic Study of
Students‟ Attitudes towards the use of Multiple Media for Learning. Proceeding paper for
International Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education
(ITiCSE 2003), 35(3), (pp. 183-187). New York, ΝΥ: ACM Press.
Dirr, P. (2004). Measuring the impact of technology on classroom teaching and learning.
ATEC: Alexandria,VA. Available: http://www.the-atec.org/docDownload.asp?docID=44
Dix A, Finlay, J., Abowd, G., & Beale, R. (2004) Human–Computer Interaction. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for instructional
technology?. Journal of Educational Technology, 31: 5, 7-12.
Dykman, Charlene A. & Davis, Charles K. (2008). Online Education Forum: Part Two -
Teaching Online Versus Teaching Conventionally. Journal of Information Systems
Education, 19(2, 157-164.
219 | Interface design
Edmunds, H. (1999). The Focus Group Research Handbook. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC
Business Books.
Eberts, R.E., & J. F. Brock, (1988). "Computer-Based Instruction", in M. Helander (Ed ),
Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (pp99-627). Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
(North Holland)
Elearnframe (2000). Facts, Figures and Forces Behind E-Learning. Retrieved 10 July, 2010,
from http://www.learnframe.com/aboutelearning/elearningfacts.pdf
Eveland, W. P., (2003). A „Mix of Attributes‟ Approaches to the Study of Media Effects and
New Communication Technologies. Journal of Communication, 53, 395-410.
Fabry, D. L., & Higgs, J. R. (1997). Barriers to the Effective Use of Technology in Education:
Current Status. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 385-395.
Faulkner, C. (1998). The Essence of Human-Computer Interaction. London, England:
Prentice Hall.
Feldman, R. & Sanger, J. (2007). Text Mining Handbook. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, MA .
Flew, T. (2002). New media: An introduction. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education
(5th
Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Nachmias, D. (1992). Research Methods in the Social Sciences
(4th Edition.). New York: St. Martin's Press.
Fresen, J. W. (2005). Quality Assurance Practice in Online Learning in High Education: An
Exploratory Study (PhD thesis, University of Pretoria, South Africa). Retrieved May 8,
2008, from http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-02172005-134301
Fry, K. (2000). Forum Focus and Overview. In Fry, K., The Business of e-learning: Bringing
your Organization in the Knowledge e-economy. University of Technology Sydney Press.
Fuad-Luke, A. (2007). Re-defining the Purpose of (sustainable) Design: Enter the Design
Enablers, Catalysts in Co-design. In J. Chapman and N. Gant (Ed.) Designers,
Visionaries and Other Stories (pp 18-52). London: Earth Scan.
Galitz, W. O. (2002). The Essential Guide to User Interface Design: An Introduction to GUI
Design Principles and Techniques. New York: Wiley Computer Publishers.
Gauss, B., & Urbas, L. (2003). Individual Differences in Navigation between Sharable
Content Objects and Evaluation Study of a Learning Module Design. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 34 (4), 499-509.
Githens, R. P. (2007). Older Adults and e-learning: Opportunities and Barriers. Quarterly
Review of Distance Education, 8(4), 329-338.
220 | Interface design
Ghaoui, C. (2003). Usability evaluation of on-line learning programs. Hershey: Information
Science Publishing.
Grudin, J., (1991). Obstacles to User Involvement in Software Product Development, with
implications for CSCW. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(3), 435-452.
Gobo, Giampietro. (2008). Doing Ethnography. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M.D. (1984). Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational
Research. Orlando: Academic Press.
Goi, Chai Lee & Ng, Poh Yen (2009). E‐learning in Malaysia: Success Factors in
Implementing E‐learning Program. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education, 20 (2), 237-246.
Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., & Derry, S. (Eds.). (2007). Video Research in the Learning
Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: LEA Publishing.
Gould, J.D. & Lewis, C., (1985). Designing for Usability: Key Principles and What
Designers Think. Communication of the ACM, 28(3), 300-311.
Gustafson, Kent L., & Branch, Robert M. (2002). Survey of instructional development models
(4th ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology, Syracuse
University.
Habsah, I., Ramlah, H., Aida Suraya, Y., Hapsah, N., Rosini, A., & Wan Zah, W. A. (2006).
Teachers‟ Belief towards the Principles Underlying the National Philosophy of Education
in Malaysia. International Journal of Learning, 13(9), 91-104.
Hajar, Mohd. Nor (2005). Conditions facilitating the Implementation of Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) Integration in the Malaysia Smart School (PhD thesis,
Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, 2007).
Hannay, M., & Newvine, T. (2006). Perceptions of Distance Learning: A Comparison of
Online and Traditional Learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2 (1), 1-11.
Harry, K. & Khan, A. (2000). The Use of Technologies in Basic Education. In C. Yates & J.
Bradley (Eds.), Basic Education at a Distance: World Review of Distance Education (pp.
122-137). Florence: Routledge.
Henderson, A. H. (1992). Technology and Teacher Education: Paradigm Shift in Instruction.
In D. Carey, R. Carey, D. A. Willis, & J. Willis (Eds.) Technology and Teacher Education
(pp 612-615). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education.
Hine, Christine M. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage Publications.
Hinostroza, J.E. & Mellar, H. (2001). Pedagogy Embedded in Educational Software Design:
Report of a Case Study. Journal on Computer & Education, 37, 27-40.
221 | Interface design
Homan, G., & Macpherson, A. (2005). E-learning in Corporate Universities. Journal of
European Industrial Training, 29 (1), 75- 90.
Hoon, T. S., Chong, T. S., & Binti Ngah, N. A. (2010). Effect of an Interactive Courseware in
the Learning of Matrices. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (1), 121–132.
Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M.J. (1988). Learning the ROPES of Instructional Design:
Guidelines for Emerging Interactive Technologies. Educational Technology, 28, 14-18.
Hsi, S. & Soloway, E. (1998). Learner-Centered Design. SIGCHI Bulletin, 30 (4), 1-6.
Hunt, B., & Ivergard, T. (2005). Towards Learning Networked Organization: Human Capital,
Compatibility and Usability in e-Learning Systems. Journal of Applied Ergonomics, 5 (36),
157-167.
Iivari, Netta (2006): „Representing the User‟ in Software Development – A Cultural Analysis
of Usability Work in the Product Development Context. Interacting with Computers,
18(4). Pp. 635-664.
Iivari, Netta & Molin-Juustila, Tonja (2009): „Listening to the Voices of the Users‟ in
Product Based Software Development. International Journal of Technology and Human
Interaction, 5(3). Pp. 54-77.
Irwin, S. (2008). Data Analysis and Interpretation: Emergent Issues in Linking Qualitative
and Quantitative Evidence. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (eds). Handbook of
Emergent Methods (pp 415-435). New York: The Guilford Press.
Jennings, S.E. & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2001). Computer Attitudes as a Function of Age,
Gender, Math Attitude, and Developmental Status. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 25(4), 367-384.
Johnson, S. A. (1997). Interface Culture: How New Technology Transforms the Way We
Create & Communicate. New York: Harper Publication
Johnson, B (2008). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches
(3rd
Edition). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Johnson, S. Anne (2005). The Art of the Author Interview and Interviewing Creative People.
Hanover: University Press of New England.
Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. M. (2003). Learning to Solve Problems
with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective (2nd
Edition). Merrill Prentice Hall, New
Jersey.
Jorgensen, D.L. (1989). Participant Observation: A Methodology for Human Studies. CA:
Sage Publications.
Jowati J.B. (2005). A Step towards e-Learning: Some Pedagogical Issues. International
Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 1(1), 48-58.
222 | Interface design
Kamariah, A. B. (2006). Malaysian Smart School Courseware: Lifelong Learning Tool for
Science, Mathematics and IT Teachers. Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional
Technology (MOJIT), 3 (2), 17-25.
Keegan, D. (2000). Distance Training: Taking Stock at a Time of Change. Florence:
Routledge.
Keil, M. & Carmel, E. (1995). Customer-Developer Links in Software Development.
Communications of ACM, 38(5, 33-44.
Khalili, A. & Shashaani, L. (1994) The Effectiveness of Computer Applications: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Research on Computing in Higher Education, 27, 1, 48-61.
Khoo, C. & Lou, D. (1995). Electronic Teaching, Learning and Presentations at University:
Pedagogical Dream or Nightmare. Proceeding Paper for the Australian Computers in
Education Conference, Perth, Australia
Khoo, H. E. (2003). Implementation of Problem-based Learning in Asian Medical Schools
and Students' Perceptions of their Experience. Medical Education, 37, 401-409.
Kennedy, G. E., Kennedy, D. M., & Eizenberg, N. (2001). Integrating computer-facilitated
learning resources into problem-based learning curricula. Interactive Multimedia
Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning, 3(1). Retrieved April 20, 2010 from
http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/2001/1/02/Index.asp.
Krueger, R. (1988). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Krueger, R.A. & Casey, M.A (2000). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research
(3th
Edition). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Koory, M.A. (2003). Differences in learning outcomes for the online and F2F version of an
introduction to Shakespeare. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(2), 18-35.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. London:
Sage Publications.
Kubey, R. W., Lavin, M. J., & Barrows, J. R. (2001). Internet Use and Collegiate Academic
Performance Decrements: Early findings. Journal of Communication, 5 (2), 336-382.
Kujala, S., (2003). User Involvement: A Review of the Benefits and Challenges. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 22, 1–16.
Kulik, C-L.C. & Kulik, J.A. (1991). Effectiveness of Computer-based Instruction: An
updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75–95.
Ladyshewsky, R.K. (2004). E-learning Compared with Face to Face: Differences in the
Academic Achievement of Postgraduate Business Students. Australian Journal of
Educational Technology, 20 (3), 316-336
223 | Interface design
Lambe, J. (2007). Student Teachers, Special Educational Needs and Inclusion Education:
Reviewing the Potential for Problem Based, e-learning Pedagogy to Support Practice.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 33(3), 359–377.
Lang, G. & Heiss, G. D. (1998). A Practical Guide to Research Methods (6th
Edition).
Lanham: University Press of America.
Landauer, T. K., (1995). The trouble with Computers. MIT Press, Cambridge
Lapan, S. D. (2004). Evaluation Studies. In K. DeMarrais and S. D. Lapan (eds), Foundations
for Research: Methods of Inquiry in Education and the Social Sciences (pp235-248).
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lee, G. S. (2000). IT and Education in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Longman .
Lee, K.W. (2007). ESL Teacher Professional Development & Curriculum Innovation: The
Case of the Malaysian Smart School Project. (PhD Thesis, Lancaster University, UK).
Lee, P.M. & W.G. Sullivan, (1996). Developing and Implementing Interactive Multimedia in
Education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 39, 430-435.
Lin, Chi-Hui (2002). Effects of Computer Graphics Types and Epistemological Beliefs on
Students' Learning of Mathematical Concepts. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 27(3), 265-274.
Litto, F.M. (2002). The Hybridization of Distance Learning in Brazil : An Approach Imposed
by Culture. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2 (2).
Loeding, B. L. (2002). The Use of Educational Technology and Assistive Devices in Special
Education. In J. L. Paul (Ed.), Rethinking Professional Issues in Special Education (pp
231-250). Wesport: Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated.
Look, D. (2005). Discussion Paper: Impact of Technology on Education, PUSD Excellence
Committee, December 2005. Retrieved 4 Sept, 2010 from
http://pleasanton.k12.ca.us/Superintendent/Downloads/Technology.pdf
Malaysian Ministry of Education (2004). Smart School Pilot Project Information. Kuala
Lumpur: Ministry of Education. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from
http://www.moe.edu.my/bestariNET/bestarinet2004.htm
Malaysian Ministry of Education (2006a). User Acceptance and Effectiveness of the Smart
School Integrated Solution. Kuala Lumpur: Educational Technology Division .
Malaysian Ministry of Education (2006b). Conceptual Blueprints - A Smart School Flagship
Application. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from http://www.msc.com.my/smartschool/
Malaysian Ministry of Education (2008). National Report: Education in Malaysia. Kuala
Lumpur: Ministry of Education.
224 | Interface design
Manning, C.D. & Schütze, H. (2002), Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processin.
Cambridge: The MIT Press
Manovich, L. (2001). The Language of New Media. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Margolin V. (1997). Getting to know the user. Design Studies. 18(3), 227-236.
Mason, R., & Rennie, F. (2004). Broadband : A Solution for Rural e-learning? International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5 (1).
Mayer, R. E. (2001) Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2002). Aid to Computer Based Multimedia Learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93 (1), 187-198.
Mayes, J. T. & Fowler, C. J. H. (1999). Learning Technology and Usability: A Framework
for Understanding Courseware. Interacting With Computers 11, 485-497.
Mayhew, Deborah (1992). Principles and Guidelines in Software User Interface Design.
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in Education: A Conceptual
Introduction. New York: Longman.
Meyer, K. A. (2002). Quality in Distance Education: Focus on On-line Learning. In Kezar,
A.J., ASHE-ERIC High Education Report, 29, 1-134.
Miyata, Y., & Norman, D.A., (1986). Psychological Issues in Support of Multiple Activities.
In Norman, D.A. & Draper, S.W. (Eds.), User Centered System Design: New
Perspectives on Human–Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale,
NJ.
Mokhtar, N., Ahmad Fauzi, M. A., Wan Zah, W. A., Aida Suraya, M. Y., & Rohani, A. T.
(2005). Teachers‟ Perceptions on the Conditions Facilitating the use of Computers in
Teaching Mathematics. Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology (MOJIT),
2(3), 88-98.
Montgomery, D. (2002). Helping Teachers Develop through Classroom Observation (2nd
Edition). London: David Fulton Publishers.
Muda, Z., & Mohamed, R. (2006). Adaptive User Interface Design in Multimedia
Courseware. Proceeding Paper of Conference on Information and Communication
Technologies, 16 (1), 196- 199.
Muller, M.J., Hallewell Haslwanter, J. & Dayton, T. (1997). Participatory Practices in the
Software Lifecycle. In M. Helander, T.K. Landauer and P. Prabhu (eds), Handbook of
Human-Computer Interaction (pp255-297). Amsterdam: Elsevier
225 | Interface design
Multimedia Development Corporation (2007). Report of the Smart School Roadmap 2005-
2020: An Educational Odyssey. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1030589/Malaysian-Smart-School-roadmap
Nastasi, B.K., Clements, D.H., & Battista, M.T. (1990). Social-Cognitive Interactions,
Motivation, and Cognitive Growth in Logo Programming and CAI Problem-Solving
Environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 150-158.
Neuendorf, K.A. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. California: Sage Publications.
Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
6th ed. Boston: Pearson.
Nielsen, J. (1990). Designing User Interfaces for International Use. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Science Publishers
Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity. Indianapolis: New
Riders .
Noble, Ian & Bestley, Russell. (2005).Visual Research: An Introduction to Research
Methodologies in Graphic Design. Lausanne, Switzerland: AVA Publishing.
Norman, Donald A. & James C. Spohrer (1996). Learner-Centered Education.
Communications of the ACM, 39(4),24-27.
Norman, D. (1998). Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books
Norman, D. (2002). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
Nugent, G., L.-K. Soh, A. Samal, & J. Lang (2006). A Placement Test for Computer Science:
Design, Implementation, and Analysis. Computer Science Education, 16(1):19-36
Oakley, B. (2004). The Value of Online Learning: Perspectives from the University of
Illinois at Springfield. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8 (3), 22-31.
Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2003). Factors Influencing Quality Online Learning Experiences.
In G. Davies & E. Stacey (Eds.), Quality Education at A Distance. London: Kluwer
Academic
Olsson, E., (2004). What Active Users and Designers Contribute in the Design Process.
Interacting with Computers, 16, 377–401.
Painter, D. & Rigsby, L. (2005). Comparing Teacher Research to Other Forms of
Professional Development. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from
http://gse.gmu.edu/research/tr/TRprofessional.shtm
Paluch, K. (2006). What is User Experience Design?. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from
http://www.montparnas.com/articles/what-is-user-experience-design/
Pegler, P. (2005). Objects and Issues- a Sunday Supplement View of Continuing Professional
Development in Higher Education. Open Learning, 20(1), 51–64.
226 | Interface design
Perez-Prado, A., & Thirunarayanan, M. (2002). A qualitative comparison of online and
classroom-based sections of a course: Exploring student perspectives. Education Media
International, 39(2), 195-202.
Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based Virtual Learning Environments: A
Research Framework and A Preliminary Assessment of Effectiveness in Basic it Skills
Training. MIS Quarterly, 25, 4, 401-426.
Plano Clark, V. L., Creswell, J. W., D. O'Neil Green & Shope, R. J. (2008). Mixing
Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches: An Introduction to Emergent Mixed Methods
Research. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (eds), Handbook of Emergent Methods (pp
363-387). New York: The Guilford Press.
Pole, C. & Morrison, M. (2003). Doing Qualitative Research in Educational Setting:
Ethnography for Education. Open University Press.
Preece, Jenny (1994). Interaction design. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer
Interaction. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Punch, K. F. (2004). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative
Approaches. London: Sage Publications.
Puteh, Marlia (2006). Electronic Learning in Malaysian Universities and the Transformation
of Malaysia (Doctoral Thesis, Monash University, Australia).
Puteh, M., & Hussin, S. (2007). A Comparative Study of e-Learning Practices at Malaysia.
Proceeding Paper for International Malaysian Educational Technology Convention 2007,
Senai, Johor Bahru, Malaysia
Radford, A. (1997). The Future of Multimedia in Education. First Monday Peer-reviewed
Journal on the Internet, 2, (11). Retrieved 10 July, 2010, from
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/560/481
Raisinghani, M. S. (2003). Web-based Education in the 21st century: A Transnational
Perspective. In A. K. Aggarwal, Web-based Education: Learning from Experience (pp.
71-88). Hershey: Idea Group.
Rashty, D. (2003). Traditional Learning vs. e-learning. Retrieved 10 September, 2008, from
http://www.addwise.com/articles/traditional_learningv.vs.e-learning/
Raskin, J. (2000). The Humane Interface: New Directions for Designing Interactive Systems.
USA: Addison Wesley
Reid, A., Jensen, B.R., Nikel, R., & Simovska, V. (2008). Participation and Learning:
Perspective on Education and the Environment, Health and Sustainability. Springer
Repetto, M. & Trentin, G., (2008). ICT and Lifelong Learning for Senior Citizens, Journal of
e-Learning and Knowledge Society ,4 (1), 189 – 198.
227 | Interface design
Reeves, T. C. (1992). Evaluating SchoolsI with Technology. Education and Urban Society
Journal, 24(4), 519-534.
Rhee, C., Moon, J., & Choe, Y. (2006). Web Interface Consistency in e-Learning. The
International Journal of Digital Information Research and Use, 30 (1), 53 – 69
Roffe, I. (2002). E-learning: Engagement, Enhancement and Execution. Quality Assurance in
Education, 10 (1), 40-50.
Rohana, A. R. (2006). E- Learning Initiatives in Malaysian Schools. Educational Technology
Division Report. Ministry of Education, Malaysia.
Rovai, A.P., & Jordan, H.M. (2004). Blended Learning and Sense of Community : A
Comparative Analysis with Traditional and Fully Online Graduate Courses. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5 (2).
Royce, W. W. (1970). Managing the development of large software systems. Retrieved 10
September, 2009, from
http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/cmsc838p/Process/waterfall.pdf
Rushby, N.J., (1992). Perpetuating the Myth. In S.A. Cerri and J. Whiting, (Eds.), Learning
Technology in the European Communities (pp 511-517). Dordrecht the Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sambrook, S. (2003). E-learning in Small Organizations. Journal on Education and Training,
45 (8), 506-516.
Savery, J.R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem-based Learning: An Instructional Model and its
Constructivist Framework. In Wilson, B., Constructivist Learning Environments: Case
Studies in Instructional Design (pp. 135-148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology .
Schank, R.C. (2002). Designing World Class e-Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schoefeld-Tacher, R., McConnell, S., & Graham, M. (2001). Do no harm – A Comparison of
the Effects of On-line vs. Traditional Delivery Media on A Science Course. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 10 (3), 257-265.
Schwier, R.A. & Misanchuk, E.R. (1993), Interactive Multimedia Instruction, New Jersey,
Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technologies Publication
Segers, M. (2002). Evaluating the Effects of Redesigning a Problem Based Learning
Environment. Journal on SCIRUS: Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29 (4), 279-349.
Sekaran, Uma (2000). Research Methods for Business (3rd
Edition). New York: John Wiley.
Shamsiah, Mohamed (2004) Academic Performance, Educational Aspirations of Technical
Secondary School Students. Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 12 (1).
Shedroff, N. (2001). Experience Design. UK: New Riders
228 | Interface design
Shield, L., and Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2006). Are Languages Learning Websites Special
towards a Research Agenda for Discipline-Specific Usability? Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(3), 349-369
Shneiderman, Ben (1987). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective human-
Computer Interaction (1st Edition). UK: Addison-Wesley.
Shiong, Baharuddin, Maizah Hura, Mohamad Bilal Ali, Jamaludin & Zaidatun (2008).
Learning “Goal Programming” using an Interactive Multimedia Courseware: Design
Factors and Students‟ Preferences. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,
17(1), 59-79.
Silverman, David (2004). Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice (2nd
Edition).
New York: Sage Publications.
Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Iannotti, N. & Angeles, J. (2000).
Teachers' Tools for the 21st century: A Report on Teachers' Use of Technology.
Washington, D.C.:National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
Smith, S. L. (1986). Standards versus Guidelines for Designing User Interface Software.
Behaviour and Information Technology, 5, 47-61.
Soren, L. (2005). User Interface Design: A Software Engineering Perspective. Addison
Wesley.
Stellman, A & Greene, J. (2005). Applied Software Project Management. USA: O'Reilly
Media
Stephen, I. & Michael, W. B. (1982). Handbook in Research and Evaluation. San Diego, CA:
Edits Publishers.
Stewart, D.W. & Shamdasani, P.N. (1990). Focus Groups: Theory and Practice (Applied
Social Research Method Series). London: Sage Publications.
Stolterman, E., (2008). The Nature of Design Practice and Implications for Interaction
Design Research. International Journal of Design, 2(1) 55–65.
Stone, D., Jarrett, C., Woodroffe, M., & Shailey, M. (2005) User Interface Design and
Evaluation. San Jose CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Sutcliffe, A. G., Kurniawan, S. & Shin, J. E. (2006). A Method and Advisor Tool for
Multimedia User Interface Design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64
(4), 375-382.
Szabo, Michael & Kanuka, Heather (1998). Effects of Violating Screen Design Principles of
Balance, Unity, and Focus on Recall Learning, Study Time, and Completion Rate.
International Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8(1), 23-42.
229 | Interface design
Thang, S. M., Murugaiah, P., Hall, C. & Hazita, A. (2009). Teachers‟ Views of Their
Involvement in An Online Community of Practice Project. CALL-EJ Online, 11(1).
Retrieved 4 Sept, 2009 from
http://www.tell.is.ritsumei.ac.jp/callejonline/journal/11-1/siewming.html
Thang, S. M., Murugaiah, P., Krishnasamy, P., Azizah, Y., & Hazita, A. (2009). An
Investigation of the ICT Challenges and Practices of Malaysian Smart School Teachers.
Malaysian Journal of Information, Communication and Technology, 1, 50-73.
Thurmond, V. A., Wambach, K., Connors, H. R., & Frey, B. B. (2002). Evaluation of
Student Satisfaction: Determining the Impact of a Web-based Environment by
Controlling for Student Characteristics. The American Journal of Distance Education,
(16), 169-189
Tilstone, C. (1998). The Value of Observation. In Tilstone, C. (ed.), Observing Teaching and
Learning: Principles and Practice. London: David Fulton .
Tsai, S., & Machado, P. (2002). E-learning, Online Learning, Web-based Learning, or
Distance Learning: Unveiling the Ambiguity in Current Terminology. Retrieved July 20,
2008, from http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=best_practices&article=6-1
Tucker, B., Jones, S., Straker, L., & Cole, J. (2003). Course evaluation on the web:
Facilitating student and teacher reflection to improve learning. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 96, 81–93.
Vallance, R. J. & M.-H. Lee. (2005). NVivo as an Aid towards Analytic Rigour when
Researching in Non English Languages and Cultures. Presented at 6th International
Strategies in Qualitative Research conference, 21st-23rd Sept, Durham.
Van Duyne, D. K., Landay, J. A., & Hong, J. I. (2003). The Design of Sites, Patterns,
Principles, and Process for Crafting a Customer-Centred Web Experience. Boston:
Pearson Education .
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S., & Sinagub, J. (1996). Focus Group Interviews in Education and
Psychology. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Vockell, E. & Asher, J. (1995). Educational Research (2nd
Edition). Englewood-Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Wadsworth, Y. (1997). Do It Yourself Social Research (2nd Edition). Crows Nest, Australia:
Allen & Unwin.
Wan Ng, E. C. & Gunstone, R. (2003). Science and Computer-based Technologies: Attitudes
of Secondary Science Teachers. Research in Science & Technological Education, 21(2),
243-264.
Wagner, D., & Kozma, R. (2005). New Technologies for Literacy and Adult Education: A
Global Perspective. Paris: UNESCO .
Weiss, Elaine (1993). Making Computer People Literate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
230 | Interface design
Weller, M. (2004). Learning Objects and the e-learning Cost Dilemma. Open Learning, 19
(3), 293-302
West, Mark D. (2001). Theory, method, and practice of computer content analysis. Westport,
CT: Ablex.
White, K. W., & Weight, B. H. (2000). The e-learning Teaching Guide: A handbook of
Attitudes, Strategies and Techniques for the Virtual Classroom. Boston: Ally and Bacon
Willging, P.A., & Johnson, S.D. (2004). Factors that Influence Students Decision to Drop out
of Online Courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8 (4), 105-118.
Wilson, B., & Cole, P. (1991). A Review of Cognitive Teaching Models. Journal of
Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(4), 47-64
Wilson, B. G., Jonassen, D. H., & Cole, P. (1993). Cognitive Approaches to Instructional
Design. In G.M. Piskurich (ed.), The ASTD Handbook of Instructional Technology. New
York: McGraw-Hill
Wu, J.H., Tennyson, R.D. & Hsia, T.L. (2010). A Study of Student Satisfaction in a Blended
e-learning System Environment. Computer Education, 55,155-164.
Yang, Y., & Cornelius, L. F. (2004). Students' Perceptions Towards the Quality of Online
Education: A Qualitative Approach. Association for Educational Communications and
Technology, 27, 861–877.
Yuen, H.K. & Ma, W.K. (2002). Gender Differences in Teacher Computer Acceptance.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 365-382.
Zain, M.Z.M., Majid, O., Luan, W.S., Fong, S.F., Atan, H. & Idrus, R.M. (2006). Computers
in Malaysian Smart School: The Changing of Technologies and Mindsets. Malaysian
Journal of Educational Technology. 6(2), 61-70.
Zaitun, A. Bakar, (2006). The Utilization and Integration of ICT Tools in Promoting English
Language Teaching and Learning: Reflections from English Option Teachers in Malaysia.
International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 2 (2), 4-14.
231 | Interface design
Appendix 1
Malaysian ethic approval letter to conduct research in Malaysia
232 | Interface design
Appendix 1 - continue
Malaysian ethic approval letter to conduct research in Malaysia page 2
233 | Interface design
Appendix 2
Approval letter from Malaysia Ministry of Education (MOE) on the list of primary Smart
School
234 | Interface design
Appendix 3
Consent Letter for the school principals
235 | Interface design
Appendix 4
Approval letter from Malaysia Ministry of Education (MOE) on getting sample of interactive
courseware
236 | Interface design
Appendix 5
Consent Letter for the courseware developers
237 | Interface design
Appendix 6
QUT ethic approval
238 | Interface design
Appendix 6- continue
QUT ethic approval page 2
239 | Interface design
Appendix7
Inform Letter for the school principals
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION for SCHOOL PRINCIPAL
AN ANALYSIS OF MALAYSIAN COURSEWARE FOR PRIMARY EDUCATION: The Impact of Interface Design Upon Engagement and Participation in Teaching and Learning Science Courseware
Researcher Contacts
NORFADILAH
KAMARUDDIN
PhD Candidate
Dr. JILLIAN HAMILTON
Principal Supervisor
Dr. JI YONG PARK
Associate Supervisor
+617 31385619 (Australia) +6012 3486324 (Malaysia)
+617 31385480 (Australia) +617 31385928
(Australia)
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Description This project is being undertaken as part of PhD project for NORFADILAH KAMARUDDIN from QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF
TECHNOLOGY (QUT) as to fulfil the requirement of the programme.
The purpose of this project is to review the current problems of the Malaysian educational courseware in terms of effectiveness interface
design characteristics and its impacts on learner interactions. It also investigates and defines the learners‟ needs in terms of facilitating
quality learning experience through courseware. The research outcomes are expected to result in the development of a practical guideline for
courseware development by presenting a set of principles for the effective design of courseware based on integrating the stakeholders‟ needs
in terms of creating a quality learning experience in courseware.
Participation Your school and your student‟s participation in this project are voluntary. If you do agree to participate, you and your students can withdraw from
participation at any time during the project without comment or penalty.
Each student who‟s agreed will participate in classroom observation that would be arranged for a time convenient to class schedule on different
days and would take about 30 minutes to 1 hour in classroom. Each session will involve audio and video taping of your child engaged in learning
activities.
To ensure the students and teachers do not feel distracted or uncomfortable during the observation process, a teacher will be present at all times, the
researcher will be unobtrusive and will not participate in classroom activities. The researcher will stay at the back of the classroom and will not
interrupt or participate in activities but simply observe them from a distance while close-up use of the courseware and screen will be recorded using
a video camera. This will minimize interruption of activities and distraction. With your permission, the non participant observation will be tape-
recorded to facilitate collection of information, and later transcribed for analysis.
Students will be given clear guidelines on the length and limits of their involvement, as well as a briefing on how the research and their contribution
will benefit students in the future.
Your students will be interviewed after the classroom observation to facilitate the data gathering from the classroom observation. This session will
involve the students responding to the researcher‟s questions. To reduce anxiety, this session also will include the teachers. However, to prevent
any problem, all interviewees‟ comment will be kept completely anonymous and may decline to answer any of the interview questions they do not
wish to answer and may terminate the interview at any time.
I would like to assure you that this study has been reviewed and received ethics clearance through the Office of Research Ethics at the Queensland
University of Technology (QUT).
Expected benefits It is expected that this project WILL benefit your student in term of creating a quality learning experience towards courseware by increasing
student interactions.
Risks The students and the teachers might feel uncomfortable during the observations, due to the presence of a non-teacher (the researcher) in the
classroom. The students and the teachers also might be feeling distracted during the follow-up interview. However, there is NO PHYSICAL RISK
beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this project.
Confidentiality All comments, information and responses are ANONYMOUS and will be treated CONFIDENTIALY. The audio/video recordings are to be
verified by the participants prior to final inclusion and the researcher will dispose of the recordings after the contents have been transcribed. The
transcription of data recordings will be kept in a secure location for 5 years time. The names of individual persons are not required in any of the
responses.
Consent to Participate I would like to ask you to sign a written consent form (enclosed) to confirm your school agreement to participate.
Questions / further information about the project Please contact the researcher named above to have any questions answered or if you require further information about the project.
Concerns / complaints regarding the conduct of the project QUT is committed to researcher integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the
ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Officer on +617 3138 2340 or [email protected]. The Research
Ethics Officer is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.
Yours sincerely,
NORFADILAH KAMARUDDIN
240 | Interface design
Appendix 8
Inform Letter for the courseware developers
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION for COURSEWARE DEVELOPER
AN ANALYSIS OF MALAYSIAN COURSEWARE FOR PRIMARY EDUCATION: The Impact of Interface Design Upon Engagement and Participation in Teaching and Learning Science Courseware
Researcher Contacts
NORFADILAH
KAMARUDDIN
PhD Candidate
Dr. JILLIAN HAMILTON
Principal Supervisor
Dr. JI YONG PARK
Associate Supervisor
+617 31385619 (Australia) +6012 3486324 (Malaysia)
+617 31385480 (Australia) +617 31385928
(Australia)
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Description
This project is being undertaken as part of PhD project for NORFADILAH KAMARUDDIN from QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF
TECHNOLOGY (QUT) as to fulfil the requirement of the programme.
The purpose of this project is to review the current problems of the Malaysian educational courseware in terms of effectiveness interface
design characteristics and its impacts on learner interactions. It also investigates and defines the learners‟ needs in terms of facilitating
quality learning experience through courseware. The research outcomes are expected to result in the development of a practical guideline for
courseware development by presenting a set of principles for the effective design of courseware based on integrating the stakeholders‟ needs
in terms of creating a quality learning experience in courseware.
Participation
Your participation in this project is voluntary to participation in this study. If you do agree to participate, you can withdraw from participation at
any time during the project without comment or penalty.
The interview would take about 30 minutes to one hour, and would be arranged for a time convenient to your schedule and you may decline to
answer any of the interview questions you do not wish to answer and may terminate the interview at any time. With your permission, the interview
will be tape-recorded to facilitate collection of information, and later transcribed for analysis.
To prevent any problem, all interviewees‟ comment will be kept completely anonymous.
I would like to assure you that this study has been reviewed and received ethics clearance through the Office of Research Ethics at the
Queensland University of Technology. Expected benefits
It is expected that this project WILL benefit you in term of producing a good quality of educational courseware by improving the development
process
Risks
There is NO PHYSICAL RISK beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this project. However it is possible that
your may be feel uncomfortable with certain of questions that will be asked by the researcher. There is a small possibility that you may choose
to say things that your peers, employers or users might criticized, however the researcher will be assured that data given is non-identifiable.
Confidentiality
All comments, information and responses are ANONYMOUS and will be treated CONFIDENTIALY. The audio/video recordings are to be
verified by the participants prior to final inclusion and the researcher will dispose of the recordings after the contents have been transcribed. The
transcription of data recordings will be kept in a secure location for 5 years time. The names of individual persons are not required in any of the
responses.
Consent to Participate
I would like to ask you to sign a written consent form (enclosed) to confirm your agreement to participate.
Questions / further information about the project
Please contact the researcher named above to have any questions answered or if you require further information about the project.
Concerns / complaints regarding the conduct of the project
QUT is committed to researcher integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the
ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Officer on +617 3138 2340 or [email protected]. The Research
Ethics Officer is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner
Yours sincerely,
NORFADILAH KAMARUDDIN
241 | Interface design
Appendix 9
School Principal Questions
School Background
1. Does your school have computer in all classrooms?
Yes No
2. Does your school receive any computers from the Ministry of Education?
Yes No
3. Does your school use the interactive courseware provided by the Ministry of
Education?
Yes, please proceed to section A
No, please proceed to section B
SECTION A (by answering YES)
1. What subject/s is/are the interactive courseware used in common?
…………………………………………………………….
2. Please describe how you most frequently make use of interactive courseware?
Daily Weekly Monthly
3. An average, how many hours per week the interactive courseware been used in classroom?
…………………………………………………………….
4. Can you describe in what ways your school has experiences with the interactive courseware
at your school?
5. Does your school have teachers who are skilled in using interactive courseware?
6. Does your school have a technical support person?
7. How about the computer other support facilities in implementing the interactive
courseware. Does your school have enough computers?
8. How does the Ministry of Education support your school in interactive courseware
implementation?
9. Do your teachers be involved in the development of the courseware?
SECTION B (by answering NO)
1. Please describe any reason why interactive courseware are not been implemented at your
school?
…………………………………………………………….
2. How does the Ministry support your school in implementing the courseware?
3. What kinds of teaching materials have your teacher most use in classroom?
4. Do your teachers be involved in the development of the courseware?
Thank you for your respond and participant for this session.
End session
242 | Interface design
Appendix 10
Sample Questions for Teacher
Topic relate to the following areas:
Questions
Part 1 - Discussion Topic :
Demographic information of the
teachers
Rationale:
To determine the background
history and the degree of teaching
experience.
1. How many years and months you in this present school?
2. How long you be experiencing with this interactive science courseware?
3. Can you describe about a classroom situation in which
you had to apply the interactive courseware?
4. When was the last time you used the interactive
courseware?
5. In your opinion, have your teaching methods changed
because of the presence of this interactive courseware
6. To the extent that you‟ve used interactive courseware in your teaching, has it saved you time or taken more of
your time?
Part 2 - Discussion Topic: Involvement in development
process and user testing
Rationale:
These questions will determine
their involvement in courseware
development of Smart School
Project.
7. Have you ever been involved in any development project before, whether it is school project or a MoE
(Ministry Of Education) project?
8. What experience do you have on testing the interactive
courseware?
9. Would you be willing to attend, participate and help the
developers or MOE in the development of interactive
courseware? Can you tell me in what ways or any
participation technique that you prefer?
Part 3 - Discussion Topic:
Interface design principle and
characteristics
Rationale:
These questions are to gauge the
teacher‟s understanding and
perception of the role of interface
design components in providing
effective learning experiences
10. What do you think of the mix of graphic or video or
audio and animation presented in this interactive
courseware. Is it helpful to you?
11. When you look at this courseware, what appeals to you?
12. Which part of this courseware have you found most
interesting?
13. What kinds of problems have you experienced with this
interactive science courseware in the classroom?
14. What improvements would you recommend for the
interactive science courseware?
243 | Interface design
Appendix 11
Focus Group Discussion – topic and questions This questionnaire was made as an example guide. The actual questions slightly varied according to the various scenarios.
Date: ____ / ____ / _____
School: _____________________________
Introduction Hello, my name is NORFADILAH KAMARUDDIN. I am conducting a study about interface design for interactive courseware. I want to get some ideas about your experiences as a student in the classrooms where interactive courseware is used. In deep, I want to know: (1) How do you used it and how did it help your learning process, (2) What was the good and not so good component used you saw, (3) What else can be done to enhance the uses of interactive courseware in the classroom from your perspective of view.
First, we will talk about the interactive courseware that you was used just now. Tell me anything that you think really impact you. Therefore, I am also interested in hearing your experiences on use of interactive courseware in any of your classes.
TOPIC 1 Routines and user attitudes related to the interactive courseware
1. Before this had anyone in this group participated in any focus group
discussion?
2. Where do you normally use the interactive courseware?
3. Do you find any differences when you use interactive courseware compared to
the printed book?
TOPIC 2 Effectiveness of components
1. What are the things in the interactive courseware that you used just now
encourage you to use the courseware more?
(Showing the screen of interactive courseware that containing of pictures and text
to the students):
2. Do the (images/ text) help you to understand the topic that you learn just now?
3. How it helps you? Can you tell me?
(Showing the page of interactive courseware that containing of animations to the
students): 4. Did you think the animations explain something?
5. How it works on you?
6. How about others components?
TOPIC 3 Principles and characteristics
1. Do you feel that you get enough information about the subject when you use
the interactive courseware? 2. Do you understand on the feedback given by the interactive courseware? 3. Are you found anything that make you confuse while you use the interactive
courseware?
244 | Interface design
Appendix 12
Developer‟s interview questions
Topic relate to the following areas:
Questions
Part 1 - Discussion Topic : Company history and profile
Rationale:
To determine the history and
extent of company involvement
in courseware development of
Smart School Project.
1. How long has your company been involved in this field, and how much courseware has you developed?
2. What are the roles of people in your production team and
company management in relation to the courseware
development?
Part 2 - Discussion Topic:
Development Process
Rationale:
These questions will determine
how the courseware was
developed and the priority of
interface design in this process.
3. Can you describe the steps that your production team
take in the interface design and development process of
this courseware?
4. Does your production team follow any standard design
process in developing the interfaces for the science
courseware?
5. Is there any person in your development team that has
been trained thoroughly in interface design?
Part 3 - Discussion Topic:
Design Guidelines
Rationale:
These questions are to collect
information on the current
guidelines that developers use in
their courseware development.
1. Do you follow any guideline in developing your
interactive courseware?
2. If YES, have you followed government guidelines?
3. If NO, did you follow other, alternative guidelines and
why?
4. Was your company provided with interface design
guidelines from the government to develop this science courseware?
5. Was your development teams satisfied with these
guidelines? What are the reasons for this?
Part 4 - Discussion Topic:
Interface design principle and
characteristics
Rationale:
These questions gauge the
developer‟s understanding of
the role of interface design
components in providing
effective learning experiences
1. Is there any part of the government guidelines /your own
guidelines on the interface design that is difficult or
problematic to implement? If there is, any reason for this, please explain.
2. Has this courseware been structured consistently to make
the interface design acceptable by most end-users?
3. What do you consider the role of interface design to be?
4. Do you think that interface design is an important aspect
of the development process compared to other aspects?
5. When is the interface designed in your process?
245 | Interface design
Appendix 13
Sample of developers‟ interview transcript
filename: IMTEQMOV02F.avi Date & Time: 29 May 2009, 11.00am – 12.15am
Tool: video recorder
Interviewee: Project manager Company: IMPAK TEKNIK SDN BHD
1. Company History and background
How long has your company been involved in this field?
We mostly involved with Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum (PKK) and other ministry project
such as INTAN, MIMOS and Bahagian Buku Teks. Under Ministry of Education, they have
3 departments which are Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum (PKK), Bahagian Teknologi
Pendidikan (BTP) and Bahagian Buku Teks (BBT). So far, we have been working with MOE
for almost 7 years.
How much is the courseware had been produced within this time? We have 2 projects from Bahagian Buku Teks (BBT) for subject Mathematics and Science.
This project was not a MOE project since we got the project from our vendor who produced
the text books. Nowadays, most of the text book will come with CD activity based. This CD
was prepared by us and we involved with this development for 5 years ago.
We are awarded a direct MOE project by the PKK and BTP. We developed primary Science
for year 2 and 5 and also Secondary level, which is Form 5 for the PKK. With BTP, the
project running by phases. It‟s including Form 1, 2, 3 and 4. So far we only involved for 3
phases (2, 3 and 4). What I can say is, we been involved for all level in Secondary School.
It‟s hard for us to determine the total lesson which had been produced. Because we received a
project for different subject and standard. However, I can say that it‟s more than 100 lessons been developed.
2. What are the roles of people in your production team and company management in
relation to courseware development?
Normally, how many person/people involved in this production work and who are they?
Basically here, we are by department. We have Project Manager, Instructional Designer,
Graphic Designer and Multimedia Programmer. These 4 people are the main person that must
be in the production. The team size may depend on the value and workload quantity of the
project. Beside these 4 main persons, we also have an additional people involved which are
subject matter expert and illustrator. Sometimes, we also need media, voice talent,
photographer and language editor. But what I can say is, as an average for Ministry of
Education project, all together, the workforce not more than 15 people. To give you the specific workforce is very difficult since it‟s depending on the project requirement.
Sometimes, we only have the team leader in the office and others task will be outsourcing.
So, what I can conclude that the quantity of people who are involved in the project are
depending on the time frame, company budget and project value.
You been mentioned about outsourcing. What is normally being outsourced?
A lot of things actually. Audio, photograph, video, etc. But then, as I mentioned just now, it‟s
depends on the requirement for that time. Sometimes we also outsource the graphic works.
Is it means that this company does not have any specific interface designer for the
courseware? Yes! We do not have a specific interface designer because the project is change several times.
Therefore, most of our graphic designer was been trained to be more flexible. They can be a
graphic designer and at the same time as interface designer.
246 | Interface design
Can you explain further about this?
In our company, graphic designer has been trained to understand about graphic principles
and instructional design principles so that they can work as interface designer. The important
things and what we need is our graphic designer must be able to read the storyboard and
understand the whole concept. That‟s enough to prepare all the artwork.
And one more thing, we normally are based on the MOE requirement for the interface design since only the MOE committee will approve the graphic user interface. We have to study
their requirement and proposed to the MOE based on their requirement even though the
requirement itself not very details enough. Then, we give an input based on this. The most
important is just to make the interface become user friendly. However, the approval is still
come from the MOE committee. So far, our graphic designers are able to fulfil the entire
MOE requirement in term of graphical user interface.
You are mentioned that your designers are capable to fulfil the MOE demand; Does the
designer of your company have attended any specific training about the interface
design courseware before?
If specific training, there are no one involved or attend. However, so far our graphic
designers are capable to do the work which elated with the production of interface design. And we believed on their background history. Most of them were graduated in design field.
3. Can you describe the steps that your production team commonly take in the interface
design and development process of this courseware?
There are a lot of productions steps in producing the courseware. Either by CD-rom or direct
online, which means, online web. For MOE project, we only produced the courseware by
using CD-rom as a platform. Normally, when we received an approval to produce a
courseware; Project Manager will handle the project. As explain earlier the process is the
same. Received the requirement, review the document, preparing the storyboard and proceed
with the prototype. Finally we do the testing.
Do your company have any standard process or follow other standard in producing the
courseware?
Currently we are following the generic model ADDIE which is mean Analysis, Development,
Design, Implementation and Evaluation. Each phase will be details. Like other company,
example instructional designer already analyse the task and then they pass to other
department.
In this company, our instructional designer will analyse the courseware from the beginning
until the end together with other designer‟s i.e. graphic designer base on their scope. We
didn‟t simply past the tasks to other department for them to continue the works. They will
seat together to discuss from the analysis phase until the end of process.
What is the common problem you are facing during making this courseware? You mean any problem that we are facing? As a developer, we don‟t have a problem. Some
more we deal with lots of people. For this Ministry‟s courseware, impossible to say that no
problem at all. As I said earlier we only prepare the design, but the approval is by MOE. Do
you understand?
Do you think that the process of making the component of interface design is the
hardest phase? To me it is too subjective. For me it‟s not too hard. The reason is in the process of courseware
production, there are certain levels. For example, inside the education system there is level 1
to level 5.
What do you mean by level? This is refers to level of learning capability. Actually we also refer to the multimedia level of
courseware itself. This means, it‟s referring to level of interactivity or courseware movement.
So, generally the level of difficulty in the process of interface development is average. Not
too hard and too easy. If we follow by logic, interface design itself has their specific section.
For example, we take navigation design requirement. Sometime we no need to add anything
because the screen bar, exit button and etc is already standard.
247 | Interface design
Do you prepare the story board before start the project of design phase? Yes. We will do the storyboard after we received the project. Actually, before we start with
any project we must built up the storyboard first then follow by design and others. The reason
is if we didn‟t do the storyboard, how we are going to submit to MOE. They need to see the
storyboard and we need to get approval for every lesson.
Now we take an example for interface. Usually project manager will prepare the storyboard
together with instructional designer. So this is considered as a guide for our designer to do their work or task.
How is it helping your production? Normally, storyboard is a guideline to designer and programmer. I mean the placement of the
button, where should go, NEXT or BACK. If on generic screen it‟s to be YES or NO. The
reason is designer need to know everything on this. But then inside the storyboard which was
prepared by our instructional designer, all the details about the courseware was explained.
Either we need the animation or not and etc.
We are also using the storyboard as our landmark for us to get a clear picture on the
courseware that we produced. So it‟s means without the storyboard we can‟t simply start the
development or design.
Let me tell you. Based on this storyboard we developed lesson mapping. In lesson mapping we prepared everything including learning strategies, learning objective and so on. Then we
start produce the prototype. At this stage, we already found the subject matter expert in order
to get the perfection of the courseware. Sometime, they asked us to make a change on the
storyboard such as title or any graphic images which they do not agreed. Then from there we
will start on lesson design. So during that phase we actually already in process of
development.
Can you tell me is the company practice the user testing process on each courseware
which been produced? For multimedia yes we have. When the lesson is complete usually we will do the in-house
testing. For graphic part, they have their own set of testing before they pass it to the instructional designer. Instructional designer will do the testing and checking for the whole
lesson based on the storyboard. Instructional designer also will meet MOE committee
together with graphic team representative.
Who will be the judges to check or prove that the courseware is successfully design
before it’s can be used by student?
Usually we send it to the ministry officer. They will be the last person to made a check on the
courseware
4. Does your company being provided with specific guideline by Ministry in the process of
making interface design component? We just have the tender document. So far that‟s the only thing you can call a guideline. For
me it‟s just a starting guideline. The reason is because after that we will always have a review
process with MOE. You need to buy the tender document you know. So for us, if the tender
document does not exist we still can produce the design based on our previous experience
and our capability. We are the developer for interface educational courseware and we know
the basic requirement for the courseware. So why should bother on that. Some more the
project is based on tender. So every single developer needs to fight each other in order to get
the project. With very brief information, do you think you can produce a good quality of
courseware? You can‟t is it? So you must be more creative. In simple word we have to make
our own initiative. But when we always do MOE project, we already familiar with their
requirement and know what they like or don‟t like. Remember that just now i told you that
every single lesson must go through with the content approval from MOE. So during this review process, there are still lots of changes and how are we going to follow their guideline.
During review session, the people who involve are the school teachers which invited by
MOE. These teachers will give a feedback during the review session. Easy to say it‟s not
documented in the guideline for what they want actually.
248 | Interface design
Do you think the guideline become part of the process of making interface design
courseware component? (Laugh) for the early stage, either you like or not we have to follow the guideline but when
we already familiar with MOE style some requirement can be pass over. Means that different
project is a different tender document. So that is why at early stage we have to follow the
guideline. When we meet MOE for several times, it will change automatically.
Do you think that the guideline is helping your company to produce the interface design
courseware component? Hard to say. Actually the company must have a skill to extract the information from MOE
especially during review session. Content of approval may give more input during that
session. So, for a new company it is quite difficult for them the produce the courseware based
on the guideline because they are not familiar with it. So i can conclude that for new
developer it‟s very difficult but for experience developer it should be no problem.
Have your company satisfied with the content in the guideline? Can you explain? We have our own reserve (Big laugh). To us when we work with the MOE project, our
objective is to give the best to the student. Means that, how to fulfill student requirement
from the courseware and also to accomplish the MOE‟s needs. Problem is always there but when we have an objective, we try to overcome everything and mostly we absorb all. Back in
mind, client is always right. They pay us for the project so we can‟t do or say much.
Actually there are two parties involved. Sometime client is okay but then maybe the
developer got a problem. In our experience with MOE, we still success to overcome them
and their requirement. To us, we have to understand each other.
We had tried to outsource the task for instructional designer but then its really create a
problem. Since we are the person who have a meeting with MOE and understand their
requirement therefore in house instructional designer is the key person for the successful of
courseware performance.
5. If possible, what is the thing in the guideline that you required to modified or replace? Can we change that? (laugh)
Any part in the guideline that been prepared by the Ministration to your company at
this time was difficult or in-relevant to be used? For me animation and video.
Why?
For the first video we received from client, usually quite difficult for us to fulfill their needs.
Means beyond our skill (laugh). For example, we do a project for government and to be use
by all student, so all the copyright we must have. Means that all the courseware produced
shall be government property. When they request very specific requirement such as we have to show the real life of the particular thing which is difficult for our designer to provide or
visualize. So that is a problem. We cannot simply take other people job, so we have to do a
little bit study on that. Meet the expert on the particular thing. We have done shooting and so
on. It was same happen to the static image as well. So this is the problem because we need to
deal with the third parties. So I think we should considered also either the MOE requirement
was logic or not.
As long as we can fulfill their requirement, we proceed the work until we cannot do it and
then we explain to them. But sometime they did not accept. For them, since they give us the
project so we have to fulfill the requirement as per their instruction. Even the MOE‟s
requirement is a high quality but they are not very sensitive on certain aspect such as system
requirement.
What is the thing that been stressed by your company to ensure the successfulness of
the courseware and easy to be used by end user? KAY: the thing that we really taking seriously is the functionality of the courseware. It‟s
including the placement, the layout of the interface and then the presentation. The important
is how user friendly it is.
249 | Interface design
How consistent is your courseware design is produce so that it is easy to use by all
users? KAY: Actually MOE have their own specific template. I think you can get it from the tender
document. We are needed to maintain the consistency of the presentation. For example, from
icons, colours and style of screen layout. Since the tender already show the requirement for
layout, so for that we always make sure that the courseware we develop must used same set
of colour scheme that can be applied for all lessons. Usually we used that. The changes only on the visual part. The rest is same.
Did your interface design courseware providing an efficient response to the end user
when they use it? KAY: we must prepare this entire thing. If you look into our own courseware (she show the
courseware), we provide everything for the end user such as Indicator, tool kits, short cut
button and etc.
Ok, thank you for your respond and participant for this session.
You are welcome
End session